Dominion Plans Low-Carbon Vehicle Fleet

100% electric, baby!

by James A. Bacon

In pursuit of its goal to achieve net-zero carbon-dioxide and methane emissions, Dominion Energy will transform its fleet of more than 8,600 vehicles across 16 states. After 2030, all new vehicles purchased, from passenger cars to heavy-duty vehicles, will be powered either by electricity or alternative fuels, the company announced today.

No word on how much the initiative will cost, or what impact there will be on Virginia ratepayers.

“Dominion Energy is proud to make these commitments to help lower our greenhouse gas footprint,” said Diane Leopold, Dominion Energy’s chief operating officer. “Over the years we have made significant progress cutting carbon and methane emissions in our operations to help us reach our goal of net zero. But we wanted to go even further by slashing emissions from our vehicle fleets, too, while simultaneously developing the infrastructure needed to support EV charging access more broadly.”

Dominion provided these details on how it will make the transition:

  • 75% of passenger vehicles, including sedans and SUVs, will be converted to electric power by 2030.
  • 50% of work vehicles – from full-size pickups and bucket trucks to forklifts and ATVs – will be converted by 2030 to plug-ins, battery electric vehicles, or vehicles fueled by cleaner-burning alternatives, such as hydrogen, renewable natural gas, and compressed natural gas. In the transition, the company will make use of trucks equipped with emissions-reducing ePTO (Electric Power Takeoff) systems.
  • 100% of all new vehicles – from sedans to heavy-duty vehicles – purchased will be powered either by electricity or alternative fuels, after 2030.

Additionally, Dominion said, as a member of the Electric Highway Coalition, the company will expand infrastructure to support electric-vehicle charging and alternative fuels at local offices and other facilities.

Dominion is riding the “climate change” wave for all it’s worth, phasing out its fossil-fuel plants, overhauling its electric grid, plugging methane leaks in its gas pipelines, and, now, shifting its vehicle fleet from gas to electricity.

“We know our customers and shareholders have heightened expectations about our role in society,” said Wendy Wellener, Dominion Energy’s vice president of shared services. “They are telling us that they want a company that is mindful of its impact on the world around us. They want a company that leads on clean energy. But they also want safe, reliable and affordable service. We are listening.”

Bacon’s bottom line: It’s not clear if Dominion sees a continuing role for natural gas — does compressed natural gas count as an “alternative fuel” past 2030? If so, I wonder how that will fly with Virginia’s environmentalists. As far as keeping electric rates “affordable,” I hope Virginia’s State Corporation Commission is listening, too.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

69 responses to “Dominion Plans Low-Carbon Vehicle Fleet”

  1. tmtfairfax Avatar
    tmtfairfax

    Clearly, we need to make changes but the cost of those changes will be passed on to the middle class and inure to already wealthy rent-seekers.

    I saw a reporter interviewing Michael Mann on TV this morning as I was leaving the house to go to work. The reporter surprisingly asked Mann about the credibility of the new UN report on climate change given all of the prior doomsday predictions that failed to come true. Not surprisingly, Mann did not answer the question but said we need to do this for the children.

    And, of course, I’m old enough to remember the “scientifically valid” predictions from the 1970s that a new ice age was imminent.

    This is not to say there is no human-behavior connected warming or that warmer temperatures cannot cause climate problems. But given all of these facts and the desire of many rent seekers to get their hands on other people’s money, shouldn’t there be some skepticism about the new report? Climate science is all about ignoring the missed predictions but requiring belief in the most recent ones.

    And I predict that, as we continue to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, a segment of the scientific community will proclaim that excessive reductions in the world’s carbon emissions threatens the viability of the plant kingdom.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      TMT – do I detect a change in your position?

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        No, I’ve not claimed there is no human-connected warming. But I’m not stupid. People regularly lie, cheat and steal to get other people’s money, such as that raised through taxes and fees. The climate change scientists and fanatics do that IMO. Moreover, they’ve missed an awful lot of predictions, which, the real world diminishes one’s credibility.

        I know our new house in NC will be more energy efficient than our house in McLean that was built in 1995. My next car is likely to be a hybrid because my wife’s Prius saves her a lot of money. But I sure as all hell am not going to introduce major pain into my life on the words of charlatans who want my money or worse yet, the MSM.

        And no one seems to be willing to answer the question as to why people should make sacrifices so that the San Francisco Financial District built on landfill can be protected for its owners. If we really were acting based on science, we’d let all of those areas built on landfill to revert to the sea and concentrate on other locations.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      So, what do progressives say about the many flawed predictions of disaster and an impending ice age? What else? They say those claims were never made.

      In 2014, Scientific American claimed that the erroneous predictions could be tied back to “nine paragraphs written for Newsweek”. In other words, those erroneous predictions almost never happened.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

      But reality and the internet tell a different story …

      https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “Now cut the red wire connecting the trigger to the timing mechanism.”

        (sound of page turning)

        “But first, disconnect the blue battery wire…”

        Uh yep. Now, who to believe? SA or the blog with the big red DONATE button?

      2. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        I’m no trial lawyer but I would like to cross-examine all of the authors of the new doomsday study with the articles posted in your second of two links.

      3. I know the Scientific America claim is a lie – the coming ice age was being taught in science class when I was in elementary school.

        There is also Kenneth Wyatt’s comments during a speech on the first earth day: . “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

        And this Dec 3, 1972 letter on Brown University letterhead, to president Nixon:

        1. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4bc3a227bd3a5fa47a5f2e00709bfa36d2a6d1009c1db171df309917e1456149.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c826a916d123f6f4ef76a9745ca69472ce71be129b601e2a477ca15d10e4155.jpg

          …and a whole lot more. Too many “scientists” were on board with the “new ice age” prediction for them to be able to deny its existence now.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Jesus guys, it’s only money. Ponding money, like ponding water, breeds disease if not mosquitoes.

  3. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Have you ever been to New Dehli, the capital of India? I have. You can cut the smog with a knife. Everything pollutes in New Dehli. High mounds of garbage burn all year long.

    New Dehli has 21.75m residents, Virginia has 8.7m.

    As Dominion and the General Assembly impoverish Virginia who is getting the government of places like New Dehli to sign on to the climate change agenda?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      India is a developing world country and the problem is if you look at the per capita energy use and pollution generation. It’s very low compared to developed countries. It’s the number of people.

      The developed countries will have to lead on this – as they have led on other issues and the developing and 3rd world follow.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      And that’s different from Pittsburgh in the 1970s?

      Don’t have to. It’s not sustainable. Ooh, ooh, let’s all sing the Union Carbide theme song… “One little, two little, three little Indians…”

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        What does Pittsburgh in the 70’s have to do with New Dehli today.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    FLASH — Cuomo resigns!

    Watch out ladies! Without his limousine, he might be on the subway. Oh wait, who’d notice?

  5. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Dominion’s advocacy is a simple case of the Baptist and Bootlegger theory. Efficient use of resources, cost-effectiveness, and technological practicality mean nothing to Larry who simply asserts that if you don’t buy the entire climate package you are a denier. Net Zero is not a practical national goal and it is folly globally. China just laughs at our stupidity as it opens more coal mines and keeps gaming the IPCC/COP system.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Catholics don’t recognize the Greek Orthodox.
      Lutherans don’t recognize the Mormons.
      Baptists don’t recognize each other at the ABC.

      Now, tell me of this bootlegger… gotta be a laugh in it somewhere.

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        Check out Baptists and Bootleggers by Bruce Yandle.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

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

          Clearly, a recreation of the moment, but effective.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Nope. Not at all. But when the vast, vast majority of the worlds scientists (90%+) have some level of consensus and a response is that they’re all lying and engaging in a conspiracy, I can’t go there. Normal rational people ought not go there.

      I agree that net zero is impractical, it’s like advocating for zero pollution.

      China has the more solar installed than any other country , right?

      But no – when the deniers/skeptics speak in term of science on a worldwide basis being wrong – not only wrong but dead wrong… or they’re all lying…. geeze..

      1. 90% consensus? Wow, missed that one. What’s your source? UNESCO Science Report
        “There were 7.8 million full-time equivalent researchers in 2013… Researchers accounted for 0.1% of
        the global population.” Let’s see, 7.9 Billion people in 2021 x 0.1% = 7.9 million now. Where did those 7.1 million sign up?

          1. 275 from second link is nowhere near 7.1 million.

            Fact Check

            Look at the number of papers examined. Not an overwhelming number, nor are they all looking at the same thing.

            Yes, humans have had an impact on climate but no one has a crystal ball for how much, nor how much other factors play into it.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Carol – these are folks who have the knowledge and background in that field.

            Would you want a Cancer researcher to tell you about climate change?

            There is no crystal ball for ANY science. but all science is an evolving and accumulating body of knowledge done by people in that field.

            Would you disbelieve cancer research that 90%+ of cancer researchers concurred on?

            Would you want all other researchers like those in other fields to also be part of that consensus?

            I seriously do not understand folks like you on this issue.

            If a Doctor told you that you had a cancer and told you about it and the research about how to deal with it – would you disbelieve him/her and want to hear from other researchers in climate?

          3. Changing the subject again. You said, “But when the vast, vast majority of the worlds scientists (90%+) have some level of consensus…”

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The clear implication was Climate Scientists, but you chose to play silly games instead?

            Are you running away from the actual issue or just having fun?

          5. You did change the subject. Ms. Bova is NOT avoiding the issue, you are.

            And you still have not backed up your claim that 90% of [climate] scientists are at a consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            you didn’t see the Wiki entry? BTW, it’s NOT … MY claim – I’m CITING documentation that has been compiled

            here’s 2:

            Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; et al. (2016). “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”. Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL….11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
            Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). “Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.

            It’s not a “claim” – it’s a fact.

            What Carol was doing was playing “gotcha”… on the lack of my using the word Climate Scientists – it’s apparently what amuses her…

          7. What Carol was doing was playing “gotcha”… on the lack of my using the word Climate Scientists

            No, Larry she was not doing that. You interpreted it that way, but that is not what she did.

            RE: “Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

            I know that claim is bullsh!t, and so do you. There has never been 100% consensus among scientists of any kind about any thing in the history of the world.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So a question for you – when you see a graphic showing predictions from hurricane models – like this:

            https://media.firstcoastnews.com/assets/WTLV/images/6d45ad7b-9cc4-4e1c-b6b6-efe191dfb3ba/6d45ad7b-9cc4-4e1c-b6b6-efe191dfb3ba_750x422.jpg

            What do you think?

            All of them are wrong?

            No one has a correct model?

            No one can accurately predict?

            No one really knows what the hurricane will do?

            Do you think the hurricane itself may just disappear and not do what any of the models are predicting?

            Finally, – would you expect an expert Cancer researcher to do a better job at the modelling such that a lot of researchers would also be considered experts in predicting hurricanes?

          9. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            Hurricane predictions are short-term and easier to make correctly. But climate scientists have been wrong on so many long-term predictions, they don’t have the credibility of other scientists.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            They ARE, I AGREE, but it’s the same basic process where there are many models and the science is about consensus.

            And I agree the climate scientists clearly do not have as much credibility, but mostly with Conservatives who have traditionally been not easy to convince on many pollution issues.

            Most of our existing pollution laws were passed with opposition from most Conservatives whether it has been about DDT or CFCs or lead in gasoline, PCBs, Dioxin, most pollutants. Very few pollution laws have been supported by Conservatives at the time of the vote; later they like the results but at the time of the vote, it’s always about how much such laws will hurt jobs and the economy, as it is with Climate Change.

            I agree – longer term – harder to nail down but also – what science is forecasting COULD ALSO be WRONG on the damage side as the no-harm side.

            We don’t know with precision (just like we don’t know a lot of other science like COVID) and that frustrates some who don’t want to believe it until it becomes hard to not believe. It’s the Conservative ethos in some respects.

            But Conservatives have also almost always been wrong about pollution laws.

            How many pollution laws have we rolled back because it turned out Conservatives were right and considerable damaged was done to the economy and jobs with no real environmental benefit?

            Compare that to how many pollution laws that have been passed – and remain in force and significant opposition to repealing them?

            By the time we know with certainty about Climate Change, there is real fear that it will be too late.

            What kind of credible Conservatism risks at that level?

            If Conservatives are wrong – and I think they are – all this talk about the future belonging to our sons and daughters is pretty cynical.

      2. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        Larry, address this. https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcei.org%2Fblog%2Fwrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions%2F%3AtDikFfn5Cexle_iiNsHAmB_bpss&cuid=6632217

        Given the track record of “climate scientists,” why believe their current predictions? The more dire the news, the more of someone else’s money they get.

      3. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        Larry, address this. https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcei.org%2Fblog%2Fwrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions%2F%3AtDikFfn5Cexle_iiNsHAmB_bpss&cuid=6632217

        Given the track record of “climate scientists,” why believe their current predictions? The more dire the news, the more of someone else’s money they get.

      4. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        A one trick pony who just parrots talking points. Try reading the most recent report excluding its Summary for Policy Makers which was written by politicians.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Dominion does not know when or if they will reach a certain goal for zero carbon but they are headed that way and will do what they can to get there and if new breakthroughs come along, incorporate them and keep on that path.

    Unlike Conservatives who are looking for every thing they can find to oppose moving on that path , not the least of which is denial of the facts and reality about climate change.

    We finally have got to the point of actually recognizing the vaccine “hesitant” and the flawed thinking that goes into it. We’re going to get that on the climate also – it will take a while and there will be those who refuse to acknowledge the facts and realities but enough others will just as they have with COVID.

    The naysayers, doubters, deniers, are going the way that they have traditionally and historically gone… kicking and screaming into the rear view mirror.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I want to be sure the battery bucket truck comes through my neighborhood first before the battery dies, and leaves you for later when it can’t get a new charge….If they were serious it wouldn’t be a 2030 target, it would be now.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        That’s a hell of a good point. Dominion could certainly start buying new electric sedans now.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        It seems they are going to accomplish their goal through buying the energy efficient vehicles as replacements for vehicles that need replacing or as part of its vehicle replacement schedule. If it were done all at once, the cost would be greater and give folks more to complain about.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          It’s a simple statement … “Starting today we will buy only electric sedans and passenger vehicles when we purchase new vehicles.”

          As with everything from Dominion their statement is full of weasel words.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Dominion is willing to do whatever they are asked to do – as long as they get paid for it.

            That’s pretty simple too!

        2. Yes, but it it appears they are not going to start doing that until 2031.

          Or, they are going to do it “after 2030” – which might make one wonder how long after 2030 they will implement the plan… 😉

          Ambiguous wording can be fun.

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        You’re not thinking longer term. You’re seeing shorter term obstacles and not realizing how powerful innovation can be.

        Who would have thought that cell phones and GPS satellites would combine with the internet to fundamentally change the way we exist?

        One breakthrough on battery technology – and it all changes.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, NOT these guys. They still think of bacon as a health food.

  7. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I have kept a bill flyer they sent me recently promoting three ways I can have the privilege of paying higher costs to save the world. The flyer states, “join 37,000 of your fellow customers.” Therefore, millions literally millions of other customers have said hell no to that. Overall, 37K is a rounding error. Given the price tag here, most would also say hell no to this idea.

    In a normal regulatory environment, the SCC could smile and say do what you want with stockholder money, but the ratepayers aren’t paying for that. Virginia is not a normal regulatory environment.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      In the end, users and customers will pay. That’s really normal.

      When we build new wastewater treatment plants or require higher level emission controls on vehicles – we pay – not the shareholders.

      I’m not sure why that is such a revelation.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        There is nothing normal about a state sanctioning a monopoly and then failing to effectively regulate the monopoly it created. Nothing normal at all.

        Of course, with unlimited campaign contributions … even to politicians who almost never face opponents during elections – Dominion can buy that lack of regulation.

        And Democrat Dick Saslaw (D-Mecklenburg), Majority Leader of the Senate, is the worst offender by far.

        Please note that I know Saslaw’s district is a classic Gerrymander in Northern Virginia. However, I choose to describe Saslaw by where he should be (and hopefully one day will be) residing rather than where he actually lives.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          “There is nothing normal about a state sanctioning a monopoly and then failing to effectively regulate the monopoly it created. Nothing normal at all.”

          Alright, which of the Falkland Islands do you call home, because you ain’t lived in the United States since 1880 if you think that’s true.

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            46 US states limit campaign contributions to state politicians. Virginia is one of only four that has no limits.

            No matter how hard the Richmond apologists wail they can never erase that fact.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Best government money can buy.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I thought doing that was a violation of free speech. no? Citizens United?

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          “There is nothing normal about a state sanctioning a monopoly and then failing to effectively regulate the monopoly it created. Nothing normal at all.”

          Alright, which of the Falkland Islands do you call home, because you ain’t lived in the United States since 1880 if you think that’s true.

        3. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Reading it a second time, note how Dominion (having duped the Larry’s of the world) built in an escape value with “alternate fuel” options. Including NATURAL GAS ! Hahahahahaha! Big D understands after all that it needs some real fuel for days when the power goes out!!

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I have always accepted the premise that we’ll still have to rely on alternative fuels but again the point is to head in the right direction and do what we can and when innovation happens, we rely less.

            It’s the old half-glass thing combined with change. Some folks just don’t want to change and that’s the way they are and will always be and they become like rocks in a stream with the water flowing around them.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Steve? Not change? Methuselah’s drawers were more likely to be changed.

            Nah, Steve will keep up with the flow, tiny pebbles, don’tchaknow, noisily banging against the big rocks as he passes.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Long extension cords. I doubt there is a Greenie on the planet who doesn’t expect that NG will have to serve as a backup to some extent… at least in our lifetimes, which was shortened more by coal than Covid.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, the naysayers say: “NO..you can’t use ANY gas cuz you said it was gonna be ZERO”.

            That’s the kind of thinking I’ve always got from Conservatives and those opposed to change.

            We can’t change… because… [insert all the things you can think of that will cause problems with change”.

            It’s what Conservatives do. It’s in their DNA!

        4. JuniusQuercus Avatar
          JuniusQuercus

          Please DJ, we don’t want that jerk anywhere near Mecklenburg. Maybe Henrico?

          1. I just want Dick Saslaw gone from government – I do not wish to foist him on others…

          2. JuniusQuercus Avatar
            JuniusQuercus

            Agreed 100%!!!

  8. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I see this not unlike I would view NoVa ‘s or Richmond METRO issue with CSOs and storm water runoff. We know it’ a problem that needs to be fixed. We have a timeframe , a “goal” but it’s not locked in stone and it’s not going to proceed even if it causes fiscal damage that is not acceptable.

    We have some folks who are just opposed to the whole concept. They think it takes money from people and is not worth the money spent, that’s it’s really not a problem that need solving much less one that justifies increasing costs to people.

    We’ve been on this dispute since way back when we first decided that the nations waterways and air quality were terrible and needed to be cleaned up.

    On this issue, it’s not just Dominion, a pile of non-govt corporations are on the same train around the Globe.

    The fact that we have the usual suspect naysayers is no big surprise.

    1. tmtfairfax Avatar
      tmtfairfax

      If these corporations figured they could make more money by not doing anything to reduce their carbon footprint, they’d be resisting like the Americans did at Bastogne.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So you think that they think that they make money by pandering on climate change?

        That’s what Dominion is essentially doing, perhaps?

        I’m of the view, perhaps wrongly, that many Corporations , the people that run them do believe Climate Change is real and that we need to do something about it. I realize not all of them feel that way especially the fossil fuel folks but it’s hard to ignore all the ones that do or believe they are all pandering.

        MOST people do believe Climate Change is real and a real threat to mankind. There is a persistent but shrinking minority of people who refuse to accept it but they rely on really preposterous ideas – like all the Climate Scientists – around the world are either lying or incompetent and wrong.

        1. tmtfairfax Avatar
          tmtfairfax

          Larry,

          One can believe in climate change and support energy conservation and the development of low-cost and reliable renewable power, without believing the doomsday rhetoric of those people who earn their living through creating climate fear. The scientists were wrong on an impending ice age and they were wrong with many global warming predictions.

          Think about it. If a new ice age was truly impending, the sensible thing to do would be to increase greenhouse gas emissions to raise world temperatures. And now, they argue for the opposite. The truth is somewhere in between.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            TMT – We “fear” science because sometimes it’s not 100% correct ?

            Would you disbelieve or abandon science about Cancer because they got some of it wrong in the past and not all of it even now is precise and known?

            You skeptics hop from one thing to another on your disbelief. The current thing now is that they were “wrong” about the ice age.

            I just don’t think abandoning science is a smart thing to do and that a true Conservative approach would be to have some doubt but to hedge your bets since you really don’t know and what they are currently forecasting could be actually better than will turn out. In other words – they could be wrong in either direction just like they are with ice ages and hurricane tracks.

            If you are a smart and prudent person – do you just abandon all of it because you don’t like the lack of precision?

            Should be the opposite. You should be wary that it’s not precise and still varying but when 90%+ of the Climate Scientists are warning – it’s foolhardy to abandon it rather that be concerned.

          2. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            You still haven’t addressed their credibility problem. They predicted an ice age within the last 50 years and missed on many, many warming predictions. Under these facts, society should not believe everything they are saying now. We should continue the course of developing low-cost and reliable, renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency. But we should not jump into costly actions that they recommend.

            If an investigation showed that the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins University doctors had a significant record of misdiagnosing patients, would you expect them to continue to be leading health care providers? Would be comfortable using their services? Would you subject yourself to a radical procedure or seek other opinions first? Or might you try a different health care provider altogether?

            There is no difference between those who blindly accept the views of climate scientists and those who blindly accept the words of Donald Trump.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            SOME of them predicted that. Others did not. You are focused only on SOME of them not the consensus.

            The scientists, by the way are NOT recommending what to do – They are basically forecasting what might happen. It’s up to us to decide what to do or not.

            re: ” If an investigation showed that the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins University doctors had a significant record of misdiagnosing patients, would you expect them to continue to be leading health care providers?”

            If that happened, would you use that one clinic or University experience to deny ALL diagnostics by all providers?

            You’re ignoring, disbelieving the majority of science on Climate change. Where does that leave you in deciding what might happen or not – just what you want to believe without any evidence or forecast from anyone or from bloggers or “smart people” instead of science?

            That makes no sense.

            I have no doubt, what-so-ever that climate science is NOT dead-on 100% correct – no more than I would accept ANY computer model for a hurricane but it’s downright ignorant to deny all of it no matter what and risk everything and not take a safe but sorry approach.

            Just denying everything and not believing the majority of scientists is not smart.

            It’s like disbelieving all cancer researchers because some of them got some of it wrong. It’s not smart.

          4. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            Once again, you give the Climate Scientists a pass on: 1) mis-predicting an imminent ice age and 2) the erroneous claims that horrible warming-caused events would have happened before now. And, yes, if the Mayo Clinic’s cancer researchers had blown a significant prediction, they would not have credibility in cancer research today. That doesn’t mean one would stop believing in all cancer research but one should be more skeptical.

            Suppose, the FDA, CDC and NIH had concluded back in May 2020 that COVID-19 vaccine A was 100% effective and had no major side-effects. Further assume this vaccine was used and it had an effective rate of only 15% and 25% of the people vaccinated developed hearing loss problems. How much credibility would those agencies have today? I know that the vaccine manufacturer would be out of business.

            The goal of climate scientists is not to continue to guide the on-going incremental reduction in greenhouse gases and energy efficiency. Rather, the goals are to continue to receive more and more money for “research,” to impose drastic lifestyle and economic changes on society and to increase the influence of climate scientists on those changes. Why are they silent on China and India, where greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase?

            You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I don’t give them a pass any more or less than I’d give Cancer researchers a pass on getting something wrong before they got it right later on, not just one or two researchers but the entire field.

            The standard you guys set is if any research is wrong – the field itself is wrong.

            There is NO SCIENCE that has not been wrong whether it’s climate or DNA or Cancer or whatever. It’s the way that science works.

            The whole conspiracy theory mentality is ignorant and wrong-headed no matter what field and to include climate science.

            When 90%+ of ANY scientific field is telling us something – it’s DUMB to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

            There are indeed folks like that. Anti-vaxxers… those that believe in laetrile and other quack drugs.. but most folks don’t dismiss out of hand an entire field of science, except when it comes to climate and COVID these days.

            I do NOT believe that Climate Science has it 100% correct but I’m also not going to dismiss the entire field as wrong or some kind of conspiracy theory.

            that’s dumb – IMHO.

  9. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Wonderful. I will gladly pay more today for a future of greenie work trucks at Dominion.

Leave a Reply