Climategate 2: Don’t Give Greenpeace a Chance

global warming.serendipityThumb Climategate 2: Don’t Give Greenpeace a ChanceBy Nick Sibilla

The United Nations (UN) has found itself entangled in yet another climate scandal. First, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was involved in “Glaciergate,” where it claimed that Himalayan glaciers would melt in 25 years. (I guess the IPCC takes 2012 a little too seriously.) It turned out this claim was based on nothing more than an interview with an Indian scientist in 1999 and confusing the year 2035 with the year 2350. Then there was “Amazongate,” with the IPCC claiming that 40% of the Amazonian rainforest is at risk from climate change. But on closer investigation, this claim was based on the work of two World Wildlife Fund activists. Not only did these authors lack a background in Amazonian forestry, they weren’t even scientists! One analyzes policy in Australia and the other is a freelance writer for The Guardian. And, of course, who can forget Climategate, where thanks to leaked emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, the public was able to learn about the suppression of dissenting papers on climate change. So much for rigorous peer-review.

Now, like many summer blockbusters, Climategate gets a sequel. Earlier this year, the IPCC made a provocative announcement: by 2050, 77% of the world’s energy needs could come from renewable energy sources. This news was all the more remarkable since renewables only provide 13% of the global energy supply today. Of course, this large increase in green energy could happen only “if backed by the right enabling public policies” (i.e. generous subsidies for wind and solar power).

Here’s where the scandal begins. Last week, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit discovered that this prediction was based off of research conducted by Sven Teske, the Director of the Renewable Energy Campaign for Greenpeace. In other words, the supposedly impartial IPCC was using a paid employee of Greenpeace to give a fair and balanced analysis of renewable energy.

Whoops.

In addition, this study was just one of 164 different scenarios outlined in the IPCC’s report. Not only was there a severe conflict of interest involved with Teske, but his report was absurdly optimistic. As Babbage at The Economist notes, “the Greenpeace one was chosen for the spotlight because it had the highest renewable penetration; the median penetration in 2050 across all 164 scenarios was just 27%.” That’s a far cry from the 77% figure the IPCC touted.

The scientific process must not be politicized for partisan gain. Yet, there is a double standard when it comes to the green movement and transparent science. This issue would have had a lot more press if Teske worked for ExxonMobil, and not Greenpeace.

By now, environmental activists should know that hyperbole and sensationalistic headlines only undermine their efforts. Indeed, according to a recent Pew Research Poll, fewer Americans believe that climate change is a real threat than they did five years ago. When the IPCC shamelessly promotes Greenpeace agit-prop as “science,” is it any wonder climate skepticism is on the rise?


Nick Sibilla is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

tt twitter big4 Climategate 2: Don’t Give Greenpeace a Chance tt facebook big4 Climategate 2: Don’t Give Greenpeace a Chance tt linkedin big4 Climategate 2: Don’t Give Greenpeace a Chance tt reddit big4 Climategate 2: Don’t Give Greenpeace a Chance

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Tagged , , , , , | 182 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Runninlow

    We must have a 55 mpg standard for all cars and trucks.
    We must.

  • Worried

    Anyone who doesn’t think the glaciers are melting simply hasn’t been to the coast lately. I know, the last time I was at Seaside, that the water is coming further up at high tide than ever before. At least by one to two inches. I always take careful measurements when I am there. This rise in the sea level can only be from one thing. Glacial melting. Or rain, but I doubt it rains enough for these kind of level rises.

    • gerry-1

      But that does not mean that global warming is man-made, significantly related to carbon and it definitely does not mean that man should be spending or wasting a trillion dollars trying to fight climate change instead of using the trillion dollars to work on world hunger, world health and adapting to climate change.

    • gerry-1

      But that does not mean that global warming is man-made, significantly related to carbon and it definitely does not mean that man should be spending or wasting a trillion dollars trying to fight climate change instead of using the trillion dollars to work on world hunger, world health and adapting to climate change.

    • Anonymous

      its called beach erosion chicken little. Next you will be saying rising water levels  in Venice Italy is cause by global warming.

      • valley person

        Well yes, as a mater of fact rising water levels in the Venice lagoon are likely a result of sea level rise which are a result of rising temperatures.  And if sea levels continue to rise beach erosion along the Oregon coast will accelerate, more houses will be lost, and so forth. At current rates the sea will be about 1 foot higher in 40 years. Doesn’t sound like much, but if you live on the coast (or like Venice) it can make a whale of a difference (no pun intended.)

        • David Appell

          Don’t forget, too, that many beach slopes are slight so noticeable amounts of beach could be lost. If a beach slope is 2 degrees, a one-foot rise in sea level will bring the water line in about 29 feet. 

        • Anonymous

          You fell in my trap I purposely chose Venice and left out an important fact.
          It is a document fact Venice was sinking for a few hounded if not an 1000 years long before industrialization. It looks I got two birds with one stone.

          • Oregonnative

            Along the Turkish coast the ports were inland much more than now. I wonder what happened between then and now.

          • Oregonnative

            Along the Turkish coast the ports were inland much more than now. I wonder what happened between then and now.

          • valley dude

            Yes, quite a “trap”. I’ve been to Venice and know the story of groundwater pumping and land subsidence. Nevertheless, sea levels there are rising as they are everywhere, which is why it is called sea level. 

            So you appear to have missed your birds. Better luck next time.

          • Ronglynn

            I have been to Venice too. The real story in that there is over 100,000 pigeons in St. Marks Square. Their additional weight is causing Venice to sink faster.

        • Anonymous

          You fell in my trap I purposely chose Venice and left out an important fact.
          It is a document fact Venice was sinking for a few hounded if not an 1000 years long before industrialization. It looks I got two birds with one stone.

    • Some Guy

      The ignorance portrayed in this post leads me to believe it is sarcasm, but I will reply anyway.

      How are you measuring the high tide, and against what reference point(s)?  How is your equipment calibrated?  

      You do know that rain comes from evaporated water, right?  It’s pretty much a closed system.  

    • Ronglynn

      My measurements show that the low tides at Seaside are lower by 20 to 35 centimeters. Combining those figures with your figures give a different picture. Clearly, the Sun and Moon are causing a greater movement of the oceans. I take my measurement just below the turnaround. Where do you take your measurements?

    • SteveDobbs

       Chicken little, do you take these measurements before or after you take your Zyprexa?

  • Peacenik

    GreenPeace has helped save the whales from the Japanese whaling fleets. Cut them some slack.
    They are good, peaceful people.

    • gerry-1

      They may or may not be good, peaceful people. But they are not always right. And for them to be part of wasteful spending of trillions of dollars on carbon trading etc by promoting their version of pseudoscience is a dangerous game for the world to be playing.

      You must do the science properly.

    • pirate

      Aha! the rising ocean levels are actually the fault of Greenpeace. More big, fat whales mean more displacement of ocean water which, in turn, will creep up the shoreline devouring our oceanside homes. 

      • pirate

        I’ll bet whales emit huge amounts of methane gas too. A much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Greenpeace could be ruining the planet while trying to save it.

        • 3H

          Yes and when we have 31 million (the number of cars on the road in the US alone in 2009) flatulent whales we may need to address the issue.  

          • pirate

            If whales would become more efficient as have cars in the past 40 years, I could ignore the whale issue. However, I suspect they are just as gaseous as they’ve always been and will never contribute their fair share to saving the planet. And they eat tiny innocent animals too. I say . ..  harvest ‘em all.

          • 3H

            I say you should lead by example!  Take my Leatherman and my kayak and harvest a whale!

        • David Appell

          Do whales emit methane? Do they ruminate like bovines? I don’t think so…. With cows it is not their flatulence that is the problem, it’s the methane and N2O in their belches (enteric fermentation) and waste emissions.

  • LC

    I was in Chicago one time and a younger (probably 18 or 19 years old) Green Peace volunteer stopped me to ask me to sign a ban on light bulbs (probably the same ban that got passed and goes into effect soon) telling me that the alternative would save businesses money. I replied since most businesses usually will cut overhead wherever they can, if these light bulbs were so much better, the would switch over without having being forced to.

    Then he called me a Communist. I told him I wasn’t so sure he knew what a Communist was and continued my shopping trip.

    • just doing the math

      Actually, there is some talk among the lighting distributors that the legislation
      on incandescents (not fluorescents) MAY not really be enforced. To many systems
      in place that cannot be converted to a fluorescent system. Just another piece
      of legislation that looked good on paper, but when you get down to converting
      into hard cold application, it doesn’t work.

    • SteveDobbs

      Da comrade! That’s pretty funny, a Marxist from Greenpeace calling what sounds to be a libertarian a communist! Greenpeace attracts the most ignorant followers to their cult.

  • valley person

    Of course this article and these comments have nothing to do with wehther the planet is actually warming (it is) and whether the overwhelming evidence is that this is human caused (it is). 

    • larsparson

      WEHTHER, indeed, valet person concedes it or not, Chuck Wiese is far more credible than geenaling GOREon kool-aid fakir, Matt Zaffino.

      D’oh, both seem hard telling whether either has an ace up his sleeve or if the ace is missing from their decking altogether.   

      • 3H

        Why should we accept Chuck’s view over all those other scientists?  What, other than agreeing with you, gives his view special credence?

        Do people really believe that we can continue spew pollutants into the air and there are no real consequences?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Do people really believe that we can continue spew pollutants into the air and there are no real consequences?

          Can you point to where someone has ever claimed this?

          A drunken Exxon mid level manager in a You Tube video will do.

          • 3H

            It’s based more on the deafening silence from the Right.  They, for the most part, don’t believe in man-made global warming. So no need to do anything, right?   How can humans help cause global changes in the climate?  Crazy talk!

            As for the more mundane and immediate effects of air pollution…  what is the response of the Right?  Roll back environmental regulations.  That’s right, the problem isn’t as serious enough to do anything about it.    Regulating polluters hurts business and costs us jobs.  Don’t even try and talk about getting people out of their cars more, you’ll be shouted down. 

            What is the Libertarian response?  They don’t have one – except personal choice and freedom, and that hasn’t worked so well in keeping the environment healthy.

            What is the Conservative response?  I don’t know.  They give lip service to clean air and water, but while they’re doing that they’re trying to gut the reglations we have now.

          • valley person

            Yes…there is yourself, right here, right now. No need for exxon or youtube when we have you here spouting your nonsense that there is no such thing as global warming due to human generated pollutants, and no real consequences to worry about.

      • valley person

        And is Chuck also more credible than the National Academy of Sciences?

        • Chuck

          Yes.

    • Oregonnative

      Your right VP, the article is about hoaxes caused for the masses.

      The article as I have read it. Who pays for the past bad post apolic suggestion, that tax dollars had to prove different.

  • David Appell

    The report also contained an author from Chevron and a researcher from Exxon-Mobil. Is that problematic as well? 

    Should the IPCC make use of experts, no matter what organization they belong to?

    • Anonymous

      Oh yes – let’s dump on the oil companies shall we.

      • 3H

        Oh no.. they don’t have a history of harming people in their chase for the dollar.  It was the industry that pretended that the process of adding lead to gasoline was making their workers sick. Nope, not them.  

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >By now, environmental activists should know that hyperbole and sensationalistic headlines only undermine their efforts.

    You know, this is a good point. The question is, when these sensationalistic headlines, seem to so often backfire when its discovered they are a total scam, why do they keep issuing them?

    Roller Disco is why.

    That’s right, roller disco. Those old enough to understand AGW is simply the latest in mankind’s endless predictions of global catastrophes probably remember roller disco. It was all the rage. When it died off there were still a few hard core addicts skating around with the headset and hot pants, but by and large it was clear the craze had reached its apogee and was on the decline.

    That’s who these sensationalistic proclamations are for. They are for true believers. They are for those undisturbed by the fact that Al Gore, James Hansen et. al. conduct their lives in no way as if they truly believed in what they said. It take a lot to keep the core constituency faithful when the party leaders rake in the millions while doing virtually nothing in their own lives that would indicate the believed any of this hokum.

    So thats why the zany wild proclamations such as this one. Its to keep the base ginned up and assure they keep their roller disco headsets on so they can’t hear or question the leadership. It lends significance to their lives.

    I mean come on, at this stage the IPCC is a joke. The head, Rajendra Pachauri, was shown to be running a scam off the Himalayan glacier fiasco. We had the head of the CRU finally admit there had been no warming over the past decade, contrary to what the AGW crowd had predicted and which some of the more brain dead insist is still the case.

    You need a lot to counter that sort of thing to keep the base in line. That’s why the zany announcements. These people, like all end of the world believers throughout the ages, are drawn to such movements because it lends signifigance to their lives.

    The world will end and they will have predicted or stopped the destruction. There is great allure in that. This is why some of the wilder predictions, such as the UN’s recently exposed 2005 hoax predicting 50Mil displaced by 2010, have to be near term. If they are too far out in time, it takes away from the significance the movement lends to the adherents life. “Who cares if the world is going to end in two generations, it needs to end in mine so my life has meaning”. And thats how all these movements, from the dawn of man have functioned. This is no different.

    So we will have continued absurd predictions such as this one. Here we have believers lured into thinking through sheer force of collective whining they will have completely changed the worlds energy usage. Imagine the importance that lends to ones life? By wishing it were so, it will be so and thus they are good and have changed the planet.

    • valley person

      And what was the National Academy of Sciences position on Roller Disco? Apparently they failed to comment on that.

      On global warming, the National Academy says that the scientific understanding of climate change has become sufficiently clear (by 2005) to justify nations taking prompt action. Period.

      And every national academy of sciences of every major nation signed the same statement. Just about every organization of scientists on the planet have agreed on this. So who to believe…the world’s scientists or Rupert? Where does zany reside?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Where does zany reside?

        Probably with you, as you are profoundly confused on this matter.

        First of all you are factually incorrect. Plenty of scientists disagree with AGW and we have them taking out full page ads in the NY Times and often famously renouncing the IPCC from time to time.

        Second, lets also remember most of those scientific bodies are highly political and have a huge vested interest in AGW promotion. After all, their funding, and often the leaderships little side business, such as the IPCC’s head or GISS James Hanson, have repeatedly been found to have lied, often in order to feather their own nests.

        I mean let’s be real here – The fact that a whole slew of government funded scientists believe in something like AGW, that expand government immensely, has about as much validity as all oil company geologists agreeing there is zero danger from offshore drilling, or all tobacco company scientists agreeing cigarettes are not harmful. You get what you pay for in science in other words. 

        Third – Let’s also remember this is the only argument you really have left at this point. That’s not very scientific and in fact buttresses my point. We have endless examples of false predictions made by these venerated scientific bodies you nebulously cite. We also have endless examples of corruption, Hansen being fairly notable in this regard.

        You have no counter as to why the predictions are so remarkably wrong, No explanation why such credence should be lent to organizations shown to be inaccurate and corrupt.

        Nope, all you have is “everyone says its true, it must be true”. And even that statement is untrue.

        Like I said – Roller Disco. Its your thing and thats all well and good. But you need to understand the zany predictions, the crazy doom and gloom stuff is to keep AGW believers like you in line.

        Its not to win near adherents to the faith. We have reached peak AGW and are pretty much on the decline of the movement. Will there be another end of the world movement in your lifetime or mine? It’s a safer bet than any AGW prediction!

        • valley person

          I am factually incorrect? How so? I stated as a fact the position of the National Academy, added the fact that the same position is held by every other major national academy, and that just about every major scientific organization on the planet agree on the basic scientific questions, including, as if you needed a cherry on top,the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a group with a vested interest in continuing the fossil fuel economy for as long as possible.

          I said nothing about whether there were individual scientists who disagree. I’d be surprised if there weren’t.

          Scientific bodies are not “highly political.” They represent their particular science to the political world. You confuse this with being political. But scientists know that political bodies make public policy, and that lay persons in government need to know what the current state of any given science is, so scientific bodies oblige by providing this. What “vested interest” does the Society of American Foresters have in convincing policy makers of the reality of global warming? Or the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians? Or the American Chemical Society?

          Answer….none. Their work and funding is not dependent on convincing policy makers of the reality of global warming. 

          Some statements about future possibilities or probabilities made by some individuals, sometimes taken up by larger bodies, turn out to be wrong or exaggerated. Science isn’t perfect, nor are scientists. They get things wrong. That Rupert, is my “counter” to your assertion that sometimes people are wrong. Duh.

          Try reading this real slow. I don’t say “everyone” agrees. Read what I actually wrote for Gods sake.

          Also try looking up Occam’s Razor and ask yourself which is the most logical explanation for what is happening with the earth’s climate. That nearly every major planetary scientific body that has spent any time studying this is wrong and you are right? Or the other way around?   

          • SteveDobbs

            You clearly have no appreciation of how academia works, and in particular how political it is, particularly the professional associations. You also have no understanding of how science arrives at an accepted theory, which is not at all about joining a society and having the few political activists who are interested in leading the organisation then write statements that claim to define the consensus view on a matter and calling that opinion a proven theory. But then, what would I know, I am only a physics professor.

          • valley person

            Since I am an adjunct professor and have done grant funded research, I have a real good idea of how academia works. And since I am a member of 2 professional associations and have served on the board of one, I know how they work as well. Since I have published peer reviewed journal and conference papers, book chapters, and books, I know how science arrives at, vets, challenges, and ultimately accepts or rejects controversial theories.  Painfully.

            Its all human, messy, filled with petty jealousies, and far from perfect. It provides lots of room for error and plenty of fodder for people with a counter agenda. But its the best approximation of reality that we have. Far better than unregulated blog debates I can assure you.

            The consensus view of the scientific establishment worldwide, based on the evidence, is clearly that the earth is in a warming stage driven primarily by human activities. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? And if you disagree, please explain what you base that on.

            If you have a better theory, step right up and put it on the table. Then do the research and see how far you can go with it. If you are a physics professor, then you know that if you can come up with a better theory, or even better yet, prove that the world is not warming at all, then you will be in line for a Nobel. So get busy dude. Don’t waste any more time here with the likes of me.

          • Niko

            Dean Apostal, your puffery and outright lies know no bounds.  

            You are NOT an adjuct professor.  You are an adjunct instructor.  BIG difference.  You teach one class a friend lined you up with as a favor.  Your students consistently give you poor reviews, so its likely you won’t be teaching that class for long.  You do not even have a presence on campus. You flunked out of grad school and have a BS in landscape design (didn’t know such a useless degree existed, I wonder when the last time a yard service required a BS for it’s workers).

            Anyone who pays dues can be a member of any number of professional associations.  BFD.  

            Your grant funded research was conducted at the USFS on grant money awarded the USFS.  No one has ever given you a dime of grant money.

            You gave ONE paper, which was only published in a book you edited – another bone thrown you by a friend.

            Your ONE book chapter was the previously mentioned paper published as a chapter in the book you edited.

            You have written ZERO books.  You edited one, as mentioned above.  

            Yeah, I bet that BS in “yard man” gave you a really solid climatology background.

          • valley dude

            I wonder what it must be like to be so wrong about so much and yet be so confident about being right at the same time? Maybe you can elaborate for us.

          • David Appell

            No, professional associations don’t have a hand in how science arrives at an accepted theory, but they do have a strong hand in communicating that theory once it is established. Those associations are usually quite conservative, and “a few political activists” rarely (if ever) issue a statement, for long, that is wrong. And certainly not to the degree we see today from scientific societies around the world on AGW. (The American Petroleum Institute excepted.)

        • David Appell

          > Plenty of scientists disagree with AGW

          That is just untrue. There are maybe three dozen scientists with relevant expertise who disagree, and those are (let’s be honest) mostly older scientists who are defending long-held views about different aspects of the theory, often unconvincingly. (This happens in all sciences.) As they say, science advances one funeral at a time.

          This paper found that only 2-3% of scientists active in the climate science field disagreed with ACC:

          Anderegg et al, “Expert credibility in climate change,” PNAS (online 6/21/10).
          http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

    • David Appell

      Rupert wrote:
      > The head, Rajendra Pachauri, was shown to be running a scam off 
      > the Himalayan glacier fiasco.

      Huh?

      There was a Telegraph article alleging that Pachauri had conflicts of interest related to institutions he is affiliated with. Its claims were withdrawn and an apology published.

  • Edwardio

    VP,Your ignorance is so astounding it has to be deliberate. Deliberate in that you’ve deliberately avoided how that so called “overwhelming evidence” has been shredded. Even with regards to the IPCC using Greenpeace GIGO as a basis for some of the consensus claims. That’s some kind of evidence.About as scienctific as Jane Lunbchenco’s AGW link to Oregon’s Ocean Dead Zones. 

    • valley person

      Shredded? then why hasn’t the national academy and every other major scientific organization on the planet said so?

      I know, they are all in on the big conspiracy right?

      You might stop for a moment and think. Ignorance means ignoring the evidence. The evidence for or against global warming is not on blogs.   

    • valley person

      Shredded? then why hasn’t the national academy and every other major scientific organization on the planet said so?

      I know, they are all in on the big conspiracy right?

      You might stop for a moment and think. Ignorance means ignoring the evidence. The evidence for or against global warming is not on blogs.   

    • David Appell

      Edwardio, you must be spending too much time in the “skeptic” echo chamber. Outside there, and especially in places where real, actual science is done and discussed, the manmade influence on climate is considered to be firmly established. Read the science journals or go to their conferences–you’ll see essentially no questioning of that link. The field has moved on to the next set of questions, such as regional predictions, impacts, better understanding of teleconnections and tipping points, and others.

      Even scientists like Lindzen and Singer no longer doubt that man now has an influence on our climate–they only question how much, usually regarding feedbacks. Bjorn Lomborg doesn’t doubt it either.   

    • David Appell

      And, there is good science behind Lubchenco’s claim. Here is only some of it:

      * “Emergence of Anoxia
      in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem,” F. Chan, J. A. Barth, J.
      Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W. T. Peterson, and B. A. Menge Science 15
      February 2008 319: 920 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1149016]

      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5865/920.pdf

      Abstract: “Recent studies
      indicate that the onset of shelf hypoxia can reflect basin-scale fluctuations
      in atmosphere-ocean processes that alter the oxygen content of upwelled water,
      the intensity of upwelling wind stress, and productivity-driven increases in
      coastal respiration (5, 6). Strongly coupled atmospheric and oceanic
      circulation underpins ecosystem dynamics in wind-driven upwelling shelves and
      ecosystem susceptibility to modulations of upwelling wind stress from climate
      warming (7, 8).”

      * H. V. McGregor, M.
      Dima, H. W. Fischer, S. Mulitza, Science 315, 637 (2007).

      * J. A. Barth et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 3719 (2007).

  • Edwardio

    “you’ll see essentially no questioning of that link.”

    David you just exposed yourself as the hack you are. 

    That one of many publications about the fabricated link references not a shred of evidence to support the fabicated link.

    There is not a single reference to any science you can find that establishes that the upwelling or ocean currents contributing to the upwelling and seasonal dead zones has anything to do with AGW or global wamring.
    Furthermore Lubchenco Barth and Chan have nothing to back up their assertions that the natural occuring dead zones are either new, getting bigger or lasting longer.

    If you are so ignorant as to not be able to distinguish between an empty claim and scientific evidence you should stop pretending ot be science journalist.

    And since I have read you go through this same episode several times before only for you to disappear having found no science I’ll also charge you with deliberately misrepresenting the topic. 

    And as was raised multiple time previoulsy Lubchenco, Barth and Chan spent a $9 million NAS grant researching the Oregon Ocean dead zones and reseachers cautioned, they were unable to establish the link, if any to global warmning” .

    The NAS is an accomplice to gross misappropriation of tax dollars. 

    • 3H

      So, why do you believe the minority/deniers more than the majority/proponents of AGW?   Every complaint, criticism and doubt you voice about the proponent’s motives can be said equally of the deniers.

    • 3H

      So, why do you believe the minority/deniers more than the majority/proponents of AGW?   Every complaint, criticism and doubt you voice about the proponent’s motives can be said equally of the deniers.

  • Bob Clark

    Even the current 13% share of renewables is comprised mostly of third world peoples burning wood and cow dung, with the former helping reduce forestation of certain parts of the third world.  Seems renewables aren’t so renewable.  In fact the way with which technology continues to advance; oil, natural gas and coal may be more renewable in an effective sense.  What’s more, these conventional sources do not require cash transfers from the government.   In fact on a net basis, domestic oil, gas and coal companies bring the federal government tens of billions of dollars of revenue each year.  Whereas corn based ethanol, wind and solar renewable mainstays require a net flow of cash from government.

    We can no longer afford the shackles of “Climate Change” as we need to unleash the economic growth tonic of lower cost and mass producible conventional energy sources.  Even Bama is beginning to see the connection between fossil fuel policy and economic growth, having agreed to releasing strategic petroleum reserve.  Unfortunately, this is not effective as it only robs “paul to feed peter.”  Nope the solution is far simpler but politically untenable for the leftist leaning Bama:  Boost drilling in Alaska (ANWR), rein in the EPA, and allow companies to bring home their hoard of overseas cash to invest domestically.  Get a clue.  Boosting economic growth in this manner may just help save much of social security and medicare.

    • valley dude

      2nd law of thermodynamics Bob. Fossil fuels are not and cannot be renewable. Cow dung is renewable. Don’t knock it.  Think Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. “Who run Barter Town?” OK, that was pig poop, but still….

  • http://profiles.google.com/jjdickson Jonathan Dickson

    CARBON TAX IS THEFT – PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=181254384531&ref=ts
     

  • Greenerthanyou

    You lazy fools are all wrong. Greenpeace has the balls to actually do stuff. All you fools do is write lame posts.
    Get a life if it is not too late.

  • Edwardio

    3H,What makes you think there is a majority/proponents of AGW?  That doesn’t even pass scrutiny and a majority doesn’t decide science anyway.And why is it that presented with the absolute fabrication by Lubchenco, Barth and Chan you have nothing to say but that empty jibberish?Are you really as shallow as David and VP.David has repeatedly responded by pulling off the web some ridiculous story echoing Lubchenoc’s fabrication. He’s purposefully tries to peddle it as some scientific basis for her bogus claims. Claims that have nothing but her convenient and self serving notion of certain winds being AGW winds bakcing them up. And every sap like you and David accepts the baselss notions as easy as David claimed Huricanne Katrina was caused by AGW.  After all Lubchenco is part of a “majority” so no need for evidence. After $9 million was wasted her team needed cover and an excuse to get more funding.Which they have. In huge amounts.

    • valley dude

      The majority that matters in climate science is the body of scientists, particularly those who study climate. There isn’t any question that the vast majority of climate scientists agree on the facts that the earth is in a warming trend caused primarily by human action that has resulted in an increase on greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. And they agree on this because of the mounting evidence. 

      All the name calling in the world can’t get you past that Edwardio.

    • 3H

      If you don’t know why you believe the contrarians, just say so.   I would say, that the majority (even vast..) who study climate science believe in AGW.   A majority..  a vast majority…  of reputable scientific associations have stated that AGW is a valid and workable theory.  All I did was ask why you choose to believe differently and I get a rant with personal attacks thrown in. 

      What makes your scientists more believable or knowledgable than mine.  And I mean the entire population of scientists, not a cherry-picked few.

      If you don’t know, or don’t want to answer the question, just say so.  If you can answer the question without personal attacks, that would be a bonus.

  • Edwardio

    No doubt fools David, VO and 3H view lunatic liar Joe Romm as an icon.
    http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/advisories/2011/06/climate_denial_call

    “Washington, D.C. – The Heartland Institute, a conservative group funded by Exxon Mobil and Charles Koch, will be hosting their annual Conference on Climate Change on June 30 and July 1 in Washington, D.C., boasting a full agenda of notable climate deniers.”

    Wow!

    But of course it’s crap.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/27/center-for-american-progress-and-romm-to-mock-heartland-conference-with-a-phone-call/#more-42362

    , we rise to question why the Center for American Progress would engage in an outright lie? Answer: That’s what progressives do because they are immune to the truth.
    For the record, neither Exxon Mobil, nor Mr. Koch, has contributed to the cost of the conference. The former has not contributed to the Institute since 2006 and the Kochs have not sent any money in more than a decade.

     

  • Edwardio

    David, VP and 3H,
     
    Your idiotic parroting of the consensus makes you deserve insults.
     
    The fact that top AGW warmers like Lubcheno have been caught lying like there’s no tomorrow has gone completely unrecognized by you.
     
    Even your ridiculous tally of scientists has no validity. 
     
    While abundant refutations of the AGW movement erode every aspect of it you cling to fantasy that the supportive science is growing.
     
    Then you act like it’s all supposed to be delivered here as if all you need is to be shown.
    You could easily educate yourself by reading WUWT and the many stories that global discussion covers.
    But your irrational and unethical position is that all of the content is fabricated right there by oil funded hacks.
     
    It wouldn’t matter what you were shown. You severe lack of perceptive skills leaves you incappable of recognizing even the most obvious.  ie Lubchenco

    You’re fools and deserve all the slamming you get.
     
    Over and over again you fail to address our own Oregon fraud Lubchenco.

    Something any simpleton can grasp.
      
    You can’t even comment on David’s absurd reference to a publication that does nothing but echo Lubcheno’s fabrication as if it’s scientific evidence of the claim she made up. 
     
    You have the whole Internet and can’t find a single science referencing link that explains how her link is anything other than her baseless and AGW movement serving speculation.
     
    I raise this repeatedly because it is a local, Oregon story of AGW scam.
     
    It is also one of the most dishonest and dopey AGW claims ever.
     
    One that amounts to no more than:
     
    Jane,  “Those particular upwelling winds may be something new or different and so may be global warming winds”.
     
    After countless publications and www distribution, as if she had something, even RealClimate crackpots were convinced, like you, that the link was well established.
     
    So out of no scientific evidence at all icons were convinced. The mere utterance from an alarmist is all they needed.
     
    That’s how the whole AGW movement has grown. Not by a “global conspiracy” but by global dishonesty & naivety. 
     
    Both of which you are engaged in.

    • 3H

      I’m sorry there is so much unhappiness in your life that simple disagreements make you vent on whatever target is handy.  I will not ask you any more questions, since you are incapable of simple debate.   It obviously causes too much stress and consternation.   I would strongly advise some form of stress relief before you put yourself into an early grave.

    • valley dude

      “Your idiotic parroting of the consensus makes you deserve insults.”

      I like your thinking. “You there who I just accidentally shot. Its your fault for getting in the way of the bullet.”

      “Even your ridiculous tally of scientists has no validity.”

      No, f course not. What do they know?

      “You could easily educate yourself by reading WUWT…”

      Yes, true. That is quite an educational source. far better than NASA, the American Academy, and nearly every scientific body on the planet.

      As for Lubchencos work, its out of my depth. I suspect it is also out of yours.

      Edwardio, if anger were a good substitute for reason, you might have a case.

  • Larry Sparks

    Don’t expect enviromentalist to honestly present the facts about global warning.

  • Edwardio

    Oh big surpise. You play another liberal game.

    It is not I having trouble debating. It is you. I was quite specific and VP, you and David can’t handle it.  David especially.

    Changing the subject, claiming abuse, avoiding all of the most germane issues, lying and obfuscation is how AGW is always defended.  Only the likes of you call that debating.
    You’re part of a big problem.  

    • 3H

      It’s probably healthy – you attack people on blogs, who disagree with you, and you don’t have to take it out on those in your immediate vicinity.  It’s just easier to vent the rage you obviously feel when not everyone immediately agrees with you.

      You may know how to debate, you just haven’t shown the desire to do so.  Of course, it will make you mad that I just won’t take your word for it.

  • Edwardio

    VP said  “As for Lubchencos work, its out of my depth. I suspect it is also out of yours.”

    No, her AGW fabricated link to Oregon’s natural occuring seasonal ocean dead zones is not out of anyone’s depth. It could not be easier to grasp.

    You’re just being the willfully blind & loyal liberal refusing to acknowledge this AGW related scam.  In providing cover and making up reasons to ignore it you are contributing to the problem. 

    She made up a link, embelished it with added fabrications of new, bigger and longer lasting dead zones and repeated it over an over again until www distribution morphed it into established science.

    They have used this scam to obtain many millions more in for their play time mascarading as vital research.

    You , 3H and David don’t debate. You don’t even honestly discuss.
    You advocate, obfuscate, manipulate and always dodge real debate.

    • 3H

      There is no sense in debating with someone whose default stance is name calling.  You’re not serious.  You just want to vent.   

  • Edwardio

    Yet another example of the unethical and ignorant left is their lunatic attack on fracking to stop drilling.

    Nothing they have claimed about fracking is true.
     
    http://percolatorblog.org/2011/06/27/the-truth-about-fracking/

    • valley dude

      Yes, those lunatic, unethical, ignorant lefties like governor Rick perry of Texas, who just signed a bill requiring full disclosure of chemicals used in fracking in Texas.  Whats with these Texas liberals anyway?

  • Edwardio

    Yet another inept post by VP.

    The bill is essentially meaningless as the chemicals were never “hidden” to begin with and this is zero indication of anything wrong with fracking at all.
    Perry jumped on a little band wagon here and it means nothing about fracking.

    Is there some nasty stuff going into fracking, Yes. Things warned not to get on your skin.  But regualations have been and are extensive.

    A the dishonest left wing lunatics are simply attacking fracking a means to obstruct drilling of any kind. 

    Naturally you buy into the whole thing.

    3H,

    Anyone hiding from answering straight up questions is the one not able to debate. 

    Using the name calling escape hatch is typical of liberals cornerned by their own dishonesty.
    That’s what you’re left with. Claiming you won’t answer because the question was mean.

    Not a single one of you unethical lunatics have been able to provide anything but more proof of Lubchenco’s distributed lie.

    • valley dude

      Perhaps Edwardio, reality exists outside your world view. In the real world, private companies are willing to put other people’s water at risk so they can extract a product to sell. The only defense against this is regulation. Even Texans gets this, but you apparently don’t.  

  • http://www.comparegasandelectricity.com/ CompareGasAndElectricity

    It’s a shame that a few cases and a couple of poor choices by scientists and journalists make it more difficult for people to realize the environmental damage being caused.  This makes it a tougher job for the real scientists with solid peer-reviewed research to get their message across.  We need to take global warming serious, and it’s important that solid research is properly conveyed and believed in.  Then, realistic renewable energy goals must be set and achieved by each country.

  • Pingback: yellow october()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: xxxcams.mobi()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: kangen water()

  • Pingback: Pet Store Franchise()

  • Pingback: weaponry()

  • Pingback: vendita droga()

  • Pingback: troijan()

  • Pingback: bambino()

  • Pingback: Avoid bankruptcy()

  • Pingback: free porn movies $$$()

  • Pingback: professional website design Detroit()

  • Pingback: blog mode marseille()

  • Pingback: cleaner()

  • Pingback: Usenext kostenlos()

  • Pingback: MOT YORK()

  • Pingback: MOT YORK()

  • Pingback: MOT YORK()

  • Pingback: cheap viagra online()

  • Pingback: pikavippi.fi()

  • Pingback: Storage Auctions()

  • Pingback: mattress singapore()

  • Pingback: mattress singapore()

  • Pingback: storage auction()

  • Pingback: BDSwiss gewinne()

  • Pingback: paid backlinks hacking()

  • Pingback: Porno()

  • Pingback: Frost and Remer in Flat Rock()

  • Pingback: tacos()

  • Pingback: Cialis Nevada()

  • Pingback: sex toys()

  • Pingback: minoxidil 5()

  • Pingback: minoxidil efeitos colaterais()

  • Pingback: std testing()

  • Pingback: Quantenheilung Köln()

  • Pingback: la pornographie gratuite()

  • Pingback: personal trainer singapore()

  • Pingback: Teragon labs()

  • Pingback: northpark Residences()

  • Pingback: Western & Sunset Appliance()

  • Pingback: day trading()

  • Pingback: Porno()

  • Pingback: upholstery cleaning()

  • Pingback: latest hollywood gossip()

  • Pingback: buy instagram followers cheap now today()

  • Pingback: St.Lucia()

  • Pingback: Epson & Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons, Epson and Sons, Epson and Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons Appliance Repair (562) 200-0545, (562) 200-0545, Epson and Sons (562) 200-0545, appliance repair in Long Beach, Long Beach appliance rep()

  • Pingback: 411-pain()

  • Pingback: m88()

  • Pingback: lose weight fast()

  • Pingback: lose weight in a week()

  • Pingback: ice maker repair()

  • Pingback: Newport & Hathaway Appliance Repair()

  • Pingback: satellite internet unlimited()

  • Pingback: oplichterij()

  • Pingback: escort vienna()

  • Pingback: charity donations()

  • Pingback: fmtrader احتيال()

  • Pingback: sexo gratis()

  • Pingback: kroken()

  • Pingback: movers()

  • Pingback: lida()

  • Pingback: Kingston()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: xxx()

  • Pingback: parachutisme soulac()

  • Pingback: Los Angeles legal recruiter()

  • Pingback: air ambulance card()

  • Pingback: maduras()

  • Pingback: http://www.taigamebigone.mobi()

  • Pingback: income protection cover comparison()

  • Pingback: Events in Santa Clarita()

  • Pingback: cum and see our discounts()

  • Pingback: farming simulator 2015 mods()

  • Pingback: pornspam()

  • Pingback: interior design company dubai()

  • Pingback: Bed bug dogs()

  • Pingback: Viagra()

  • Pingback: Local News()

  • Pingback: sophia hills()

  • Pingback: lorenzo()

  • Pingback: Valencia News Paper()

  • Pingback: best condo()

  • Pingback: chicago criminal lawyer()

  • Pingback: Aardappels()

  • Pingback: Crown at Robinson()

  • Pingback: Videos Gays()

  • Pingback: tre residences()

  • Pingback: Porno()

  • Pingback: אלינור ליבוביץ()

  • Pingback: Cheap Botox()

  • Pingback: אלינור ליבוביץ()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: bd swiss demo()

  • Pingback: bd swiss seriös()

  • Pingback: interior design portal singapore()

  • Pingback: allo pizza vesoul()

  • Pingback: Sexo Gay()

  • Pingback: videos porno()

  • Pingback: Small Business Loans Wixom()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)