Let us settle the Global Warming debate once and for all. Tonight at 6:00pm

“The High Price of Hot Air!” by Hon. Jeff Kropf
Wed., July 2nd, 6:00 pm, PDX Airport Shilo Inn, Executive Club Meeting

Global Warming alarmists have introduced legislation both in Congress and in the state legislature to “solve” climate change. This will cost Oregon over 100,000 jobs, millions of dollars in economic growth and increase even further the cost of gasoline and other forms of energy for all Oregonians! Jeff Kropf, a former State Representative, KUIK 1360 radio host, and a great friend of the Executive Club, comes to us as the new Oregon Director of Americans for Prosperity. He will relate how they will fight the job-killing impulses of those ignorant, politically correct politicians. Jeff will also outline plans for his July 26th, “Defending the American Dream Summit” which will be held here at the same Shilo Inn.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:20 | Posted in Measure 37 | 64 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Steve Plunk

    Good luck Jeff. I doubt the alarmists will want a real debate and I doubt they will ever admit their “theory” is full of errors. You see it’s not about science, the pseudo-science they use is merely another tool to accomplish what they could not accomplish over the last fifty years through the political system. They seek a more collectivist society, a government that controls production as well as consumption, and most disturbingly they want to control dissent. We see that last one with their “the debate is over” talk and constant reminders of “consensus”.

    AGW has become a “religion” of sorts which will make it even harder to correct. Religions are based in faith and AGW is what Bret Stephens calls an “nonfalsifiable hypothesis” just like religious faith. But unlike religion which seeks to free mens souls the AGW crowd is seeking to control mens souls through control of their lives.

    I admire your mettle for taking this on. You obviously have more patience than I or most anyone could muster when dealing with these people. You will fight circular logic, the claims of “denial” (nice trick likening this to genocide), and an onslaught of so many facts and figures no one can make sense of them (meant to confuse and overwhelm the senses). Again I say good luck.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Good luck with any sort of debate. I imagine if this is anything other than preaching to the choir, the non members of the chorus will engage in shout down tactics.

    AGW is and always has been a religion, I’ve said that since its inception. As a faith based holistic world view, featuring an end state of man determined by his actions in adherence to that faith, AGW fits the definition perfectly. Shunning and punishment of heretics, as AGW members do, solidifies the comparison. Most religions have had their periods of conversion by force, AGW is no exception. The Catholic church certainly had that period. The Al-WahhābÄ«yya branch of Islam currently has it. One can only hope the world will emerge from this period, as it did the Inquisition, reasonably intact with clearer heads prevailing.

    • David

      > AGW is and always has been a religion.

      Hardly. Religions rely on faith. AGW has been proven by the scientific method. That is, taking the hypothesis of AGW, postdictions and predictions were made that are accurate.

      This is the same scientific method you reply on to demonstrate the safety of the medication you take, the airplanes you fly on, the cars you drive, the lasers that scan your groceries at the checkout counter, the GM crops being planted all over the country, and the information you might receive from genetic counseling.

      Why do you accept the findings of the scientific method in all these cases — indeed, you reply on them for your very welfare — but not in the case of AGW?

      • jim karlocik

        *David:* Hardly. Religions rely on faith. AGW has been proven by the scientific method. That is, taking the hypothesis of AGW, postdictions and predictions were made that are accurate.
        *JK:* Hi David, I see you’re still infesting the local blogs with you falsehoods (I say that because I have corrected almost everything you have said. I did it with peer reviewed papers, yet you insist on repeating the same old AL Gore garbage time after time):
        As to predictions, NASA warming alarmist, Jim Hanson predicted, in front of congress, out of control warming. Result: *it is now cooler (or close to) than when he made theat prediction USING HIS OWN DATA* see climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/another-assessm.html Failed prediction disproves the theory. He is wrong. You are wrong. (BTW, one of his temperature predictions is fairlyt close to what actually happened – the one where he predicted temperature with *drastic CO2 cuts.* He is a fool. You ae following fools.)

        *JK:* As you are well aware, recent peer reviewed literature shows that *CO2 does not cause warming:*

        *1.* “… temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. *Changes in carbon dioxide content lag* those in temperature by five months.” (NATURE . VOL—343 ‘7 22 FEBRUARY 1990, pg 709)

        *2.* “We propose that the recent disproportionate *rise and fall in CO, growth rate were caused mainly by interannual variations in global air temperature* (which altered both the terrestrial biospheric and the oceanic carbon sinks), and possibly also by precipitation. “(NATURE • VOL 375, 666)

        *3.* Even Schneider dismissed CO2’s effects in his 1971 paper that was part of the coming ice age hysteria:
        “It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, *the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.* ” (SCIENCE. VOL. 173, 138) (This article was the basis of “U. S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming” Friday, July 9 , 1971 THE WASHINGTON POST)

        *4.* “Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, *CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3+/-1.0 ka* ,” (Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 583 -589)

        *So, David, please tell me how CO2 lagging temperature can cause global warming.*
        Also, David, you will recall that I have repeatedly asked you for evidence for the CO2-temperature link & you never produced any. Well now we know why – the link is in the direction that disproves your position. *please quit wasting our time with you unsubstantiated drivel about CO2 causing warming.* (Or provide some peer-reviewed citations.)

        *David:* Why do you accept the findings of the scientific method in all these cases — indeed, you reply on them for your very welfare — but not in the case of AGW?
        *JK:* Because what you just said is not true. (Or did I miss a paper or two that supports your claim?)

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          > So, David, please tell me how CO2 lagging temperature can
          > cause global warming.

          Because, unlike your simplistic reasoning, sometimes increases in temperature cause increases in CO2, and sometimes increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature. It’s a complicated but tight correlation.

          Neither necessarily come first. Either can come first. It’s a complex system.

          You have, in fact, hit on part of the reason why AGW is so serious — initiated by increases in CO2, increasing temperatures are going to work through the earth’s system and release even more CO2, which will produce even more warming. That’s called a positive feedback.

          • Anonymous

            *David:* … and sometimes increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature. It’s a complicated but tight correlation.
            *JK:* Please show us a few peer reviewed papers, otherwise you are just wasting our time with Sierra Club propaganda.

            *David:* Neither necessarily come first. Either can come first. It’s a complex system.
            *JK:* Please show us a few peer reviewed papers, otherwise you are just wasting our time with Sierra Club propaganda.

            *David:* You have, in fact, hit on part of the reason why AGW is so serious — initiated by increases in CO2, increasing temperatures are going to work through the earth’s system and release even more CO2, which will produce even more warming.
            *JK:* First you have to show that CO2 actually causes warming in the real world at today’s CO2 levels. You have not done that because you can’t.

            *David:* That’s called a positive feedback.
            *JK:* Positive feedback is pure speculation by the alarmists. Please show us a few peer reviewed papers, otherwise you are just wasting our time with Sierra Club propaganda.

            Quit wasting our time.
            JK

      • Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

        The multiple comments from “David” come from David Appell, PhD who is a prominent journalist writing for such publications as Scientific American. With a PhD in theoretical physics and obvious literary skills, he should have something to say about “Global Warming.” Unfortunately, he is so caught up in the alarmist propaganda and such an advocate of it that he appears to have lost the most important skill of a scientist: critical thinking.

        The most obvious problem with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the lack of credible scientific evidence to separate natural climate variations from man-made ones. While there is good solid evidence to show that our climate responds to all sorts of natural variations from solar to volcanic to ocean cycles to orbital variations, no link to CO2 has ever been found. “Evidence” such as the “Hockey Stick” of Michael Mann, PhD has been thoroughly discredited. Proponents such as David Appell, PhD have been forced to fall back on the climate codes which they will tell you predict disaster in the future. What they never mention (and should be obvious to any physicist) is that the codes have so many arbitrary parameters that they can predict any outcome that their authors want. In other words, they prove NOTHING.

        Dr. Appell tries to tie AGW theory to many of the successes of modern science. His reference to the approval process for modern medicines is particularly telling. All new drugs are subject to RIGOROUS testing by scientists who have no association (no financial interest) in the drug, and if they are actually conducting the clinical trials, not even any knowledge of which pills are the new drug and which are placebos. This goes a long ways to assuring an objective evaluation of the new drug.

        In contrast, AGW proponents do everything themselves from advocacy to manufacturing “evidence.” They have so many conflicts of interest that no one should take them seriously. The largest drivers of this hoax are money and power, the same things that have corrupted men through the ages. The climate “crisis” has attracted vast sums of government money (est. $50B) and made many careers. It has been such a gold mine that proponents will surely continue to promote it even as the climate has cooled over the last decade and may now be in another negative PDO cycle (multiple decade La Nina cycle).

        Of course, AGW is far more than aberrant science because it is being used to strangle our economy, our energy supply, our food supply, and our future.

        • eagle eye

          I agree with a fair bit of what you say, but I don’t think it does your cause much good to call it a “hoax”. There is too much high level scientific firepower behind it. Including from the physicists. You may think no physicist should believe this stuff, but a lot of them do. Look at the American Physical Society statements on this.

          Calling it a hoax is not going to convince anyone who has an open mind. Neither is casting aspersions on people’s motives. (That, by the way, is the same thing that is done to the minority of climate scientists who are skeptical of AGW, it is claimed that they are all whores of Exxon and the like. I don’t like it any better when it is done to one group than another. But in a name calling war, you’re going to be outshouted.)

        • jim karlocik

          David Appell, PhD! What field? (The guy doesn’t even know what a log graph is.)

          Thanks
          JK

          • Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

            Jim: David Appell got a PhD in theoretical physics from the State University of New York about a quarter century ago, went to work for various telephone companies, and then switched to “creative writing” (journalism) which has been his profession for many years (according to his resume).

            It is sad that he has become a mouthpiece for AGW politics, religion, and pseudo-science, albeit a good one. Journalists, especially those trained by realclimate.org, know the language of climate science very well and some of the arguments, but utterly fail to sort out the vast amount of rubbish or see where the science is really going. It does not take another PhD physicist like me to see that he piles it on higher and deeper.

          • David Appell

            I am a “mouthpiece” for nobody. I’m a journalist. I report what takes place in the scientific literature, in conferences, and elsewhere. The fact it, whether you like it or not, the scientific literature and conferences are dominated by papers that prove AGW. These aren’t “scientists” who write the occasional op-ed or go off to some unpopulated Oregon county and give unchallenged post-dinner speeches to Republicans, they’re bonafide scientists who do detailed calculations and analysis, submit their work to peer-reviewed journals where it is vetted by experts, and present and defend their work at seminars and conferences.

            If the case against AGW is to obvious, Gordon, why aren’t you writing papers about it and publishing them in AGU journals like GRL, or the Journal of Climate, or Science, or Nature? You know as well as I do that that’s where real science takes place, and always has. Disprove AGW — and from what you write, that sounds trivial to do — and you will become world famous and you would win all kinds of prizes. You would be civilization’s hero.

            So why not publish there instead of in op-eds?

          • Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

            Thanks, Dr. Appell, for admitting who you are. I always like to see comments from people who are willing to sign their full name. That is a small step in the right direction. Accountability and responsible behavior are big issues in science and journalism today.

            As to my personal qualifications, I have published original research in an AGU journal and was furthermore proved correct by subsequent research! But those were the days when “peer-review” was actually rigorous and the science honest. I am still a scientist today which is why you see me joining with over 31,000 other American scientists (9,000 PhDs and 3,000 PhD physicists) to condemn AGW fraud. That’s a lot more scientists than the 2,500 claimed by the UN IPCC. And many of the 2,500 IPCC “reviewers” have joined with us to condemn the conclusions written by UN bureaucrats and not by scientists.

            As to helping to educate the public, I did speak to one group in the Eugene/Corvallis area where two of the most important universities in Oregon are located. That’s hardly the backwoods of Oregon. One university study concluded that the more the public knows about climate science, the less apt they are to support alarmism.

            You missed a good talk by Jeff Kropf tonight. He stressed the high cost of climate hysteria and how proponents are trying to do in industrial civilization with their remedies. Although not a scientist, he certainly understands the consequences of the hysteria you are promoting.

          • jim karlocik

            *David* … they’re bonafide scientists who do detailed calculations and analysis, submit their work to peer-reviewed journals where it is vetted by experts,…
            *JK:* NO THEY DON’T – their work is NOT VETTED by experts, they are reviewed by their own true believing friends – the process is broken and you have your head in the sand. You are ignoring the National Acadamy of Sciences’ Wegman report where this past chair of the statistics group wrote:
            *Wegman:* page 4: In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at *least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him*. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus *“independent studies” may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. *(Bold added; from: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4)

            Thanks
            JK

        • David

          > The most obvious problem with the theory of Anthropogenic
          > Global Warming (AGW) is the lack of credible scientific
          > evidence to separate natural climate variations from
          > man-made ones. While there is good solid evidence to
          > show that our climate responds to all sorts of natural
          > variations from solar to volcanic to ocean cycles to orbital variations, > no link to CO2 has ever been found.

          I have presented this evidence again and again:

          * The entire Ch. 9 of the IPCC 4AR WG1 report goes over, in great detail, the evidence for anthropogenic finger prints in the modern climate record.

          * Fig 9.5, IPCC AR4 WG1. You can denigrate climate models if you want, but the fact is they do back-predict last century’s climate. What do the skeptic’s models show?

          * As Hansen said 20 years ago, the last 20th century temperature fluctuation is 3-sigma above the natural deviation, which occurs by chance about 1% of the time.

          > “Evidence” such as the “Hockey Stick” of Michael Mann, PhD has
          > been thoroughly discredited.

          No, it has not. See the 5/16/07 New Scientist article by Michael Le Page. The 2006 report from the US National Academy of Sciences says, “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.” Several other independent reconstructions, such as Crowley and Lowery, have reached essentially the same conclusion.

          > In other words, they prove NOTHING.

          How, then, do you propose predicting the future climate?

          > All new drugs are subject to RIGOROUS testing by scientists who
          > have no association (no financial interest) in the drug,

          The NY Times, about every three weeks, uncovers a serious breach of ethics by doctors with financial ties to the very drugs they advocate. And we’ve seen over the years several new drugs that have caused serious harm despite the “rigorous” testing of scientists: blindness from Viagra, Vioxx, the damage done by hormone replacement theory, and so on.

          > In contrast, AGW proponents do everything themselves
          > from advocacy to manufacturing “evidence.” They have so
          > many conflicts of interest that no one should take them
          > seriously. The largest drivers of this hoax are money and power,

          Money and power drive everyone, including (especially?) global warming skeptics. How many skeptics have been found to have accepted copious amount of money from the fossil fuel industry? Even Lindzen took a little. Read Ross Gelbspan. Singer, Michaels, Soon, Baliunas, Legates, Idsos, others. See Chris Mooney’s May/June 2005 story in Mother Jones.

          By your argument, no one should believe any modern scientific result. How could you possibly believe any mathematical theorem proved today, since essentially all mathematicians are living off government grants? Think physicists are just kidding about quarks and gluons for the sake of getting more grant money? Think the sequencing of the human genome was faked for the sake of a few thousand jobs?

          > The climate “crisis” has attracted vast sums of government money
          > (est. $50B) and made many careers. It has been such a gold mine > that proponents will surely continue to promote it

          Scientists make their bones by proving results *against* the consensus, not in agreement with it. Young scientists make a name for themselves by finding errors in the work of their elders, or by extending their work in new directions with new ideas. I see very few/none ideas in the scientific literature or at conferences that disprove AGW. It’s now taken as a starting point.

          > even as the climate has cooled over the last decade

          Gordon, you really should look at the scientific data more carefully. See, for example, Lambert’s blog, 3/25/08, or my blog on 10/7/07.

          > Of course, AGW is far more than aberrant science because it is
          > being used to strangle our economy, our energy supply, our
          > food supply, and our future.

          Yes, there are costs to addressing AGW (though the IPCC estimates it’s only 0.1% of GDP for 30 years). How much will AGW cost us if we *do not* address it?

          • jim karlocik

            *David:* I have presented this evidence again and again:
            *JK:* That is not evidence. Give us a few peer-reviewed quoted with citations like I did when I showed that several people are finding that *CO2 does not lead temperature* . David, you have to overcome this little detail because *your entire case hinges on this one little inconvenient fact.*

            *David:* What do the skeptic’s models show?
            *JK:* It is your job to prove the case, you have not done that. You allegidly have a Phd, so you should recognize proof.

            *David:* The 2006 report from the US National Academy of Sciences says, “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. …
            *JK:* Are you incapable of learning? The National Academy of Sciences said the peer review process is broken in this field. I’ll repeat it for you again:
            *Wegman:* page 4: In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at *least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him*. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus *“independent studies” may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. *(Bold added; from: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4)

            Here is what the former head of the statistics branch of the National Academy of Sciences said about your hero Mann:

            *Wegman:*
            In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. (07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4)
            *JK:* That is harsh criticism in the understated world of real science.
            MBH98, MBH99 are the papers that gave us Al Gore’s hockey stick temperature curve. Wegman called them “somewhat obscure and incomplete …. leads to a misuse in principal component analysis.” In ordinary English they are caca.

            You will recall that the MM03/05a/05b, that Wegman talks about, are the McIntyre papers severely criticizing Mann. McIntyre pointed out that:
            You can take red noise and put it into the algorithm used in MBH98 and get the famous hockey stick.
            You can remove the bristle cone pines from the data set and the hockey stick disappears.
            If you use the correct data centering methodology, the hockey stick disappears.
            Wegman described the criticisms in
            MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling

            Bottom line: *the Mann papers that gave us the hockey stick are “obscure and incomplete” and had a “misuse in principal component analysis”* while the *critics of the Mann papers were found to be “valid and compelling.”*

            *David:* How, then, do you propose predicting the future climate?
            *JK:* Simple. Recognize reality: we don’t yet know how. (How is this relevant to AGW/NOT AGW)

            *David:* How could you possibly believe any mathematical theorem proved today, since essentially all mathematicians are living off government grants?
            *JK:* Real scientists do something that seems beyond you: *they look at the evidence, not messenger.*

            *David:* Gordon, you really should look at the scientific data more carefully. See, for example, Lambert’s blog, 3/25/08, or my blog on 10/7/07
            *JK:* Do you have anything credible?

            *David:* Yes, there are costs to addressing AGW (though the IPCC estimates it’s only 0.1% of GDP for 30 years).
            *JK:*

            *David:* How much will AGW cost us if we do not address it?
            *JK:* Nothing – it is has long ago passed the threshold into a popular delusion. For a classic book on this see:
            gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            >> David: Gordon, you really should look at the scientific data more
            >> carefully. See, for example, Lambert’s blog, 3/25/08, or my blog on >> 10/7/07
            > JK: Do you have anything credible?

            Jim, this is exactly why I mostly ignore you. No matter what evidence is presented to you, you put your fingers in your ears and deny its credibility. You never give a reason *why* it’s not credible, it’s just that you disagree with it and so its easiest to label it not credible.

            Lambert’s and my graph come from the NASA GISS ocean + land temperatures. With HadleyCRUT3, these are the best temperature time-series in climate science.

            What time-series do you use?

          • jim karlocik

            *David:* > So, David, please tell me how CO2 lagging temperature can cause global warming.

            Because, unlike your simplistic reasoning, sometimes increases in temperature cause increases in CO2, and sometimes increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature. It’s a complicated but tight correlation.

            Neither necessarily come first. Either can come first. It’s a complex system.
            *JK:* Please show us a few peer reviewed papers, otherwise you are just wasting our time with Sierra Club propaganda.

            *David:* You have, in fact, hit on part of the reason why AGW is so serious — initiated by increases in CO2, increasing temperatures are going to work through the earth’s system and release even more CO2, which will produce even more warming.
            *JK:* First you have to show that CO2 actually causes warming in the real world at today’s CO2 levels. You have not done that because you can’t.

            *David:* That’s called a positive feedback.
            *JK:* Positive feedback is pure speculation by the alarmists. Please show us a few peer reviewed papers, otherwise you are just wasting our time with Sierra Club propaganda.

            Quit wasting our time.
            JK

  • Crawdude

    Climate: meteorology typical weather in region: the average weather or the regular variations in weather in a region over a period of years.

    Climate change is an oxymoron! That is what climates do, they change.

    Due to no recorded increase in earth temps. in 6 years, the GW cult has now switched verbiage to “Climate Change”. I can only reason that it is in an attempt to regionalize their unsupported hypothesis.

    Look everyone, Oregon is cooler this year, it due to “Climate change”, no duh, really? See above definition.

    Don’t worry, when the climate naturally switches back to hotter summers, the GW chicken little’s will be back. Hopefully they haven’t eaten all their Y2K rations by then.

    As a foot note: They’ve discovered that there have been large volcanic eruptions under the poles over the last couple of decades. Hmmmm, that might explain some of the ice cap melt. Rumor has it that Algore’s company may not be selling volcano offsets for those stupid enough to fall for his scheme again.

    • David

      Crawdude, you completely misunderstand the science, and then you blame the science for not living up to your misunderstanding of it.

      No climate scientist has ever said that there will not be cool years among the hot years, or even cool decades among the hot ones. Indeed, their projections are usually for the year 2100, not the year 2009. They have not predicted temperatures to increase monotonically year after year. They agree that natural factors have a significant impact on the climate, which lead to fluctuations.

      Their predictions are about *climate* — a long-term average of the weather…. 10, 20, or more years.

      Before you criticize the science, you should at least understand what it says.

      • eagle eye

        “No climate scientist has ever said that there will not be cool years among the hot years, or even cool decades among the hot ones. Indeed, their projections are usually for the year 2100, not the year 2009.”

        You are very naive if you actually believe this. “Cool decades among the hot ones”? Nobody talked about this until it became apparent that we are in a cool decade right now. Nobody predicted it (except a few global warming skeptic scientists). But there are plenty of temperature projections from the global warming crowd, you can easily find them on the web. They are monotonic (constantly increasing).

        The climate scientists who put this stuff out were very foolish. They believed their own models too much. Now they are having to do a good deal of backtracking. And if the cool period lasts for 30 years instead of 10 — as some very reputable people are predicting is at least a good possibility — the backtracking will turn into a full-fledged rout.

        You say the predictions are usually for 2100, not 2009. What kind of prediction is that? It can’t possibly be verified or disproven for almost a century, or at least for many decades (when it will become apparent or not whether we are on track).

        A theory that can’t predict anything of use is a theory of no use at all.

    • dean

      CD…the climatoligists who track climate have called it “climate change” for many years. It is the media that has belatedly adopted this term. The reason climate change is a better term is that “warming” is not expected to be uniform across the planet, and there are some locations that could cool due to changes in oceanic currents. Projections are that the highest amount of warming it in the far north.

      Rupert and Steve…what is your evidence of global warming being a “religion” not based on scientific observation, recording of data, physics,
      modeling, analysis, peer review, and so forth? What makes it “faith-based? Faith in what exactly? Faith in the findings of science? Your comparison of AGW to faith based resistance to science is ridiculous unless you have some evidence that faith has trumped science with respect to climate change. You probably don’t have any because there isn’t any….but don’t let that stop your from casting charges out there.

      • Steve Plunk

        Dean, Of course expressing an opinion does not require evidence so to speak. My impressions of this as a religion are based upon a few factors. The desire to convert others is certainly indicative of a religion as is the presence of prophets like Jim Hansen and Al Gore. These prophets not only act as leaders but they also use charisma and allege the ability to foresee the future. The warnings of end times and the wickedness of our ways seems familiar as well.

        We could look at the carbon credit purchasing and the idea of offsets as a modern version of buying indulgences. I also see similarities with the early church leaders of living differently than what they ask of their followers. Hansen has even called for the jailing of heretics who would claim contrary views much like heretics of old were imprisoned for questioning church doctrine.

        Followers of AGW claim insights that the common man cannot have. Like early religious scholars they say we must trust them since it is too hard to understand. AGW proponents have moved argument from warming as more evidence builds against it. The way followers use obscure data reminds me of the way religious scholars would have arguments over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

        I find the AGW followers habit of referring to nonbelievers as deniers to be especially religious like. It reminds me of the term heathen applied to other nonbelievers in days past. Marginalizing others in such a manner is mild form of insulting them and establishing them as ignorant and savage. It’s a refuge of those with weak arguments.

        Like those who await the rapture AGW proponents warn the time is nigh and those who repent will be saved. Now I have nothing against those who see the rapture coming but I also know it will come like a thief in the night, not when we expect it. Those who warn us of catastrophic climate change can no more predict it than other false prophets.

        So that’s part of why I see this a quasi-religion and the underlying science as less science and more politics. The traits are similar and the goals not always true.

        • dean

          Steve…ok…I see your point. But it seems more about the rhetoric than about the science. Religion is belief in something that has no empirical, factual basis. It is metaphysics. Global warming is not metaphysical. It is based on measurable physical phenomena. That is what makes anthropogenic global climate change NOT a religion.

          And let’s face it…Al Gore is hardly a charismatic leader.

          Those of us, including John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush by the way, who accept the scientific interpretation of what is being mesured and experienced by climate scientists, are not “followers” of any person or set of metaphysical beliefs. We simply accept the science as presented. Its no different than accepting plate techtonics, evolution, the earth revoloving around the sun, or any other scientifically demostratable fact of life that may contradict our prior beliefs or our direct experience (i.e. we may not “feel” the earth warming).

          No one I know of is saying “repent and ye shall be saved.” Quite the opposite. You can continue to believe whatever you want. It is actions that matter. Either we learn to get along with lower CO2 emissions or WE ALL suffer, “believers and non-believers” alike. Again, this is quite different than religion, which offers salvation through belief. No such luck.

          No question, as scientific findings are converted into public policy we get sausage making.

          Eagle…it is a matter of relative warm or cool. Our current decade is most definitely relatively warm compared to the past 100 plus years. All of the years since 2000 have been warmer than all but perhaps one or two years prior to 1980, back to the first point of reliable temperature records from 1855. 1998 was a record warm year that has been matched or nearly matched twice since. When global warming skeptics/doubters/deniers/cumudgeons say we are now “cooling,” they are simply using a deliberately narrow frame of reference (1998) to bolster an otherwose unsupportable point. I wish it were otherwise.

          • eagle eye

            dean — you are sadly deceived if you believe that human caused global warming has been demonstrated the way the other things you mentioned are:

            “no different than accepting plate techtonics, evolution, the earth revoloving around the sun”

            I know of no scientists who doubt the solarcentric theory or plate tectonics. Even with regard to evolution, there is hardly anything in the way of a scientific alternative being put forth by people who are experts. (I’m not saying that there aren’t experts who have reservations about the adequacy of the standard evolutionary theories).

            Whereas there are plenty of credible experts who doubt the “consensus” on global warming, and there are a number of plausible alternative theories about the causes of the observed warming, theories that are under active investigation.

          • dean

            Eagle…I agree there is some legitimate debate, but only because the science of global climate change is still contemporary rather than historic, the data is subtle, the effects very gradual, and because the political and economic implications are very intimidating. Unfortunately as we wait for incontrovertible evidence to present itself we continue to load the atmosphere with more CO2. Thus waiting has a downside that waiting to accept evolution or plate techtonics does not share.

            If you look at the work of those trying to knock the theory down, they started by questioning the temperature data, then moved onto questioning the cause, now appear to be moving onto questioning the rate of change or accuracy of the models. This suggests that it is the outcome….policy change they want to stall. It is not primarily about scientific doubt. It is about resistance to structural change that is going to cost money, especially to certain industries who fund the doubters.

            Also…you cited the “cool decade” we are in. Yet the evidence for that relative “coolness” (relative to 1998) is brought to us by the very same scientists using the same measuring techniques and ridiculed stations (heat island effect and all that) who are supposedly engaged in this vast consipiracy to decieve us into green policies. If it is a conspiracy, then why didn’t they fudge the data to keep us thinking the world is getting steadily warmer?

          • eagle eye

            “some legitimate debate, but only because the science of global climate change is still contemporary rather than historic, the data is subtle, the effects very gradual, and because the political and economic implications are very intimidating.”

            minor details all, yes. Oh, you left out one little thing: the disputes about the causes of the warming.

            The business about a conspiracy is a complete red herring, I never said there was any such thing. Yes, the evidence comes from the data (some of which, by the way, is provided by global warming skeptics).

            The actual evidence for AGW is actually pretty sparse, as I discovered to my surprise looking into it on my own.

            The professed goals of reducing CO2 emissions 80% worldwide would be lunacy if taken seriously. It is all built on ideology resting on a foundation of very shaky science.

            Fortunately, it is all just hot air, so far. Nobody is actually going to do this. But a lot of damage could be done even by pretending to try. Gas at $4.35/gal. is just a tiny taste of what is to come if the ideologists have their way. Of course, what some of them want is exactly to cripple the modern industrial capitalist economy. A lot of the rest are just cuckoo followers. Like the “environmentalists” who want to put wind farms all over what’s left of the blighted landscape.

          • dean

            Eagle…I’ll let the wind farm comment pass.

            But the evidence for anthropogenic global climate change rests on a firm scientific foundation:

            1) The fact of the greenhouse effect, without which we would be an ice planet. Long wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. No debate on that.

            2) Trace gasses, including CO2, are part of this effect, and their contribution has been calculated by using radiative transfer codes (I have no idea what those are, but they sound cool). There is some debate on the exact amount CO2 contributes.

            3) The increase in atmospheric CO2 has been well documented as being 30% above pre-industrial levels. I don’t know of much debate on this point.

            4) Radiative forcing is calculable for any climate variable, including CO2 and solar strength. Is this disputed? Not that I have seen.

            5) If CO2 doubles, the net effect is an increase of 3 degrees C in global average temperature. This accounts for known feedbacks (increased clouds, water vapor, etc…). Disputed? Perhaps. But not within the large body of climate scientists. lots of dispute over how quickly we get to doubling because it depends on what we do with respect to conservation.

            6) Observed phenomena, like temperature measurements, thermal expansion of the oceans, arctic ice thinning, glacial retreat, early animal migrations, and so forth. Disputed? Here and there, but not as a body of evidence.

            No…you did not say conspiracy. Others have and still call it a “hoax.”

            I don’t know who wants to “cripple the American economy.” Maybe some aging hippies on a commune I once was involved in. But not Al Gore, not John McCain…not Barak Obama, not the European Union. I think the greater fear is crippling the life support system that sustains our economy and ourselves. We can afford to pay a bit more for energy now. Driving more fuel efficient vehicles, weatherizing our homes, using wind to generate electricity….these are not crippling measures. If it turns out we erred we can rescind the extra carbon charge later…maybe even offer refunds, and the coal will still be there to dig up and burn. No harm no foul.

          • Anonymous

            “I don’t know who wants to “cripple the American economy.” Maybe some aging hippies on a commune I once was involved in. But not Al Gore, not John McCain…not Barak Obama, not the European Union.”

            That is precisely why their proposals are not to be taken seriously. If they know it, shame on them, and if they don’t, double shame.

            The 3 degree estimate of CO2 forcing is anything but precise. Even the “official” IPCC estimates have a huge range of uncertainty. And there are credible estimates that are much, much lower, by as much as close to a factor of 10. A good case can be made just from current data that it is lower than 3 by at least a factor of 2. The science is far softer than you realize.

          • dean

            Yes but its just as possible the estimates are off in the other direction. It could be far worse. Why roll the dice on something ths important?

          • eagle eye

            Basically what you’re saying is “we really don’t know so anything could happen”. And that’s precisely the point. In a state of such ignorance, you can make up any scenario. You don’t hack off your leg because it’s possible you could get an embolism this afternoon that will kill you. You don’t radically transform the world political and economic order because of a half-baked climate theory.

          • David Appell

            It’s not that “anything can happen.” Warming is the obvious first guess. CO2 is responsible for 9% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, which raises surface temperatures by 15-30 C.

            Why, therefore, shouldn’t a 35% increase in CO2 levels result — to first order — in even more warming?

          • eagle eye

            You make the point beautifully. Let’s take your 9% and 15-30 degrees C at face value. Approximately 1/3 increase in CO2 then would lead to 3% of (15-30 degrees) warming or about 0.5 – 1.0 degree C. Not a calamity. Incidentally this happens to be the ballpark of the low-end estimates of the CO2 forcing in the next century, not for a 35% but a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

            Virtually nobody is saying there won’t be SOME warming due to increased CO2. The question is how much with the lower limt as 0 degrees warming.
            I don’t claim to know what the correct answer is — I don’t think anybody knows at this point — but there is no reason for panic at this point.

            I do think it’s entirely possible that most of the late-20th century warming will turn out to be largely or mainly due to natural causes. I don’t believe natural climate variation is at all comprehensively understood, and I think the climate science types have way oversold themselves.

  • JessseO

    Radio host. Climatologist. You say potato, I say potahto.

    Hackery, science, future of the planet. Whatever.

    • Tim Lyman

      Politician, climatologist, you say Al Gore, I say dim-witted opportunist with a messianic complex.

  • David

    > Due to no recorded increase in earth temps. in 6 years, the
    > GW cult has now switched verbiage to “Climate Change”. I can
    > only reason that it is in an attempt to regionalize their
    > unsupported hypothesis.

    Actually this switch happened in the late ’90s, because scientists learned that more than just “warming” would take place in a world affected by higher greenhouse gas concentrations. It may be wetter in some regions, drier in others, and there is even the possibility that some regions would get colder due to couplings with ocean currents. There may be more droughts and more storms. It’s a complex situation, and “global warming” only captures it to first order.

  • David

    > They’ve discovered that there have been large volcanic
    > eruptions under the poles over the last couple of decades.
    > Hmmmm, that might explain some of the ice cap melt.

    No — too much ice, too little volcano.

    “The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn’t say.”
    — Canada.com, 6/25/08

    “With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun.
    “Scientists don’t see any significant connection, however.
    “We don’t believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice,” Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, “but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column.”
    — FoxNews.com, 7/2/08

    • Tim Lyman

      Gee, north polar ice melting in July. Who woulda thunk it?

      • dean

        Tim…I would say Al accomplished a fair amount with his dim wits.

        And what makes him an “opportunist” when he was among the first to warn about global warming. Wouldn’t an opportunist by definition be one who showed up late to the game and pretended to be leading the parade?

        When one is losing an argument, one lashes out and belittles rather than dealing with substance.

  • David

    Crawdude wrote:
    > Climate change is an oxymoron! That is what climates do,
    > they change.

    Of course. But almost never this fast. The upward fluctuation in the global temperature in the last 30 years is about 3-sigma above the average fluctuation. There’s less than a 1% chance of that happening naturally.

    Also, when scientists calculate the climate, they find that they cannot explain it with only natural factors. Anthropogenic factors (GHGs, land use changes) need to be included to (correctly) explain the past century’s climate:

    http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp
    IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703

    • jim karlocik

      *David:* But almost never this fast.
      *JK:* Almost never is not the same as never. This distinction is especially important today, when the sun is behaving in an ”also never” manner. But you ignore the sun. Even as it matches temperature better than CO2.

      *David:* The upward fluctuation in the global temperature in the last 30 years is about 3-sigma above the average fluctuation.
      *JK:* So is the sun.

      *David:* There’s less than a 1% chance of that happening naturally.
      *JK:* Equally applicable to today’s sun. The last time that the sun behaved as it is doing today was just before the little ice age. If you want to see a convincing correlation chart, look at the solar cycle length and climate.

      *David:* Also, when scientists calculate the climate, they find that they cannot explain it with only natural factors. Anthropogenic factors (GHGs, land use changes) need to be included to (correctly) explain the past century’s climate
      *JK:* That is yet another logical fallacy and you should know it. Lets take a close look:
      1. We can’t figure out how nature causes this, so lets
      2. see if we can postulate a man cause.
      3. We were able to add a fudge factor therefore we have it right.

      Grade school logic! Here are a few obvious flaws:
      1. Item 1 presumes we know all possible natural causes AND have them correctly weighted. To merely NOT be able to figure out something does not prove man caused it any more than saying God caused it.
      2. The fact that we can make our models match reality with an added factor DOES NOT make that added factor the correct one. We can always make a model work by adding God to it.

      *David:* (repeating above) when scientists calculate the climate, they find that they cannot explain it with only natural factors.
      *JK:* They recently came a lot closer when they added “natural variations” to their models and got the recently publicized prediction of coming cooling. They are not doing science – they are just wasting grant money on an overgrown playstation.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        >> The upward fluctuation in the global temperature
        >> in the last 30 years is about 3-sigma above the average
        >> fluctuation.
        > JK: So is the sun.

        So is the sun WHAT? What quantity are you talking about? What parameter? What measurable effect?

        As far as I read, the sun is pretty normal now, and has been for a couple of hundred years.

        Please show me what feature of the sun is currently at a 3-sigma level above its typical value, and then show me how that translates into radiative forcing.

        > If you want to see a convincing correlation chart, look
        > at the solar cycle length and climate.

        I’ve seen these plots and I am not convinced at all. Regardless of whatever cycles or sunspots are taking place, the sun’s luminosity has not varied by more than about 0.1% for hundreds of years now.

        As Lockwood and Frohlich showed last year in Proc Roy Soc A in 2007, recent solar trends are, if anything, *opposed* to the Earth’s recent temperature trend. They followed up with another paper in 2008 with more details. And, yes, I’ve read Svenmark’s response to their paper, and I found his reasoning weak and not convincing.

        • jim karlocik

          *David:* As far as I read, the sun is pretty normal now, and has been for a couple of hundred years.
          *JK:* Except, of course that it has been almost without sunspots for quite a while. That is very unusual. The last this (and certain other things) happened was just before a major climate cooling, which some say is starting to happen now.

          *David:* > If you want to see a convincing correlation chart, look at the solar cycle length and climate.
          I’ve seen these plots and I am not convinced at all.
          *JK:* Why not? The correlation is better than that of CO2 with temperature.

          *David:* Regardless of whatever cycles or sunspots are taking place, the sun’s luminosity has not varied by more than about 0.1% for hundreds of years now.
          *JK:* You obviously haven’t bothered to look at any of the numerous recent papers. It is not about luminosity. It is about other solar effects.

          *David:* As Lockwood and Frohlich showed last year in Proc Roy Soc A in 2007, recent solar trends are, if anything, opposed to the Earth’s recent temperature trend. They followed up with another paper in 2008 with more details. And, yes, I’ve read Svenmark’s response to their paper, and I found his reasoning weak and not convincing.
          *JK:* You are grasping at straws.

          Thanks
          JK

    • Crawdude

      In your opinion David, the fact that we are able to better track temperature changes through technology is a huge factor. The GW hypothesis or crack pot idea, however you want to look at it is normal cyclonic weather changes. These have been happening since the worlds been around in one form or another and in varying speeds.

      The sky is not falling David, but if you feel you need to dwell on the negative to make your life seem fulfilled, that’s your choice.

      I won’t bore you with articles that contradict your articles. They are all based on statistics, which is the easiest form of mathematics to misrepresent.

      Easier to say, I don’t agree with who you agree with and you don’t agree with who I do.

  • Jerry

    What is far more important than all this nonsense about warming and cooling is the eventual switching of the north and south poles. It IS coming! And it has happened before!

    Then what we will do? Will our fluxgate compasses in the rearview mirrors of our SUV’s still work? I don’t think so.

    Everything that is up will be down and everything that is down will be up.

    Where is the concern about this planetary eventuality??

  • Jay Bozievich

    Dr. David Appel, Please answer these two questions:

    What is the optimum climate for Earth?

    Have we ever had a stable climate on Earth?

    Just wondering…

    • David Appell

      > What is the optimum climate for Earth?

      The natural one that exists with no contributing factors from man’s excessive domination of ecosystems — no excess of GHGs above pre-industrial levels, no significant land clearing, no overpopulated herds of cows used merely for food.

      > Have we ever had a stable climate on Earth?

      Sure — everything prior to about 1750 AD.

      • eagle eye

        You’ve really pegged yourself — the optimal climate is that in which man would have had no effect — no land clearing, no livestock “merely” for food. You want to go back not 50 years, and not to 1750, but 10,000. But 1750 is revealing enough. You are in the grip of nothing so much as a secular, utopian, earth-worshipping religion. It is impossible to take you seriously as a scientist or even a science journalist.

        • David Appell

          The fact that I support clean (=carbon-free) energy hardly means that I am a primitive. I hardly want to live in the year 1750 (usually — once in a great while it seems an attractive option). I want all the conveniences and life- and labor-saving aspects of modern life. I just want to power them not with fossil fuels, which are damaging the planet, but with clean fuels that produce less pollution and much less carbon.

          I realize the easiest intellectual path for you to follow is to claim your opponents somehow want to take the world back to BC days. But it’s very lazy thinking, fairly comical, and easy to see through. You don’t want to engage AGWers on the scientific issues, so you ineptly try to simply dismiss them as kooks.

          It doesn’t fool anyone.

          • jim karlocik

            *David:* You don’t want to engage AGWers on the scientific issues,
            *JK:* Neither do you.
            I cite peer reviewed papers by name, issue and page. You make vague assertions with no citations, usually not even bothering to mention a source. How can we take you seriously when al you do is repeat the RealClimate crap, which any rational person recognizes as being created to defend the hockey stick fraud.

            But even those fraudsters had to finally admit that:
            1. Historically, CO2 increases in response to temperature.
            2. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.
            3. CO2 is only responsible for a tiny amount of any greenhouse effect.

            Then add in the fact that
            1. many peer reviewed papers show that modern CO2 follows, not leads temperature (see above posts in this thread)
            2. Of the total annual CO2 emissions, man only emits about 3% (per NASA)

            Thus it is hard to see how any rational person can continue to believe that man has a meaningful effect on temperature based on the evidence, because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

            Thanks
            JK

          • eagle eye

            Look, you are the one who said he prefers that there had been no land clearing, no livestock herds, no greenhouse gas release. Perhaps you will say that this would be in an “optimal” world. But in the real world in which we live, the world whose comforts none of us would want to give up, these things have happened. In the case of the land clearing and greenhouse gases, they would only be reversible on a very long time scale, with immense disruption to the world as we know it.

            If by an “optimal” environment you mean one where none of the things that were necessary to bring us to our present happy state had happend, but where we still kept all the things we want, well dream on about your fantasy world. I have mine too. But I’m not so crazy as to try to turn the world upside down to bring it about.

      • Jay Bozievich

        Dr. Appell (sorry for the misspelling before),

        Your answers reveal an interesting point of view. Both the Bronze Age Optimum (also known as the Roman Wram Period) and the Medieval Climate Optimum occurred prior to “man’s exessive domination of ecosystems” and were times of general prosperity for both man and biodiversity. (no significant mass extinctions, faster vegatative growth from tree ring records, etc.).

        Today’s climate is cooler than both those periods (and the 1930’s), so if we accept the theory of AGW, then why panic if man pushes the climate into a range that actually benefits life on the planet? (Not that I am accepting theory of the CO2 drivers of AGW)

        And speaking of expelling GHG’s and “overpopulated herds of cows”, what about the methane emissions from the vast herds of native ruminants that Man’s agrarian culture displaced? Are there as many cows in North America now as there used to Bison? We all know that methane is a far more active GHG than CO2.

        I am also sure that the people starving in Northern Europe at the begiining of the Little Ice Age in 1650 really felt like that was a stable climate they wanted to maintain. Or the poeple of Pensylvania liked the stable natural climate of 1816 when they had snow storms in June caused by a natural volcanic eruption in 1815 that led to a yer long “volcanic winter”.

        My point is, warmer climate has historically been better for life on earth than colder. There has never been a stable climate on Earth even before man.

        I right this as I sit here in the Willamette Valley choking on smoke drifting up from the lightning caused fires around Big Sur. How many pounds of CO2 is that placing in the atmosphere compared to man?

        I hope you are supporting the BLM’s Western Oregon Plan Revision because good timber practices and making wood products is one of the best ways to sequester CO2 and to prevent natural fire releases of CO2 available.

        • dean

          Eagle (up above)…if you accept the 0.5-1 degree warming that has already occured due to the 35% CO2 increase, then what stops you from accepting the mid range estimate of 3 degrees warming if CO2 doubles? That is what the present science predicts….they are not predicting “anything”. And it is this doubling, limiting the total human induced temperature increase to 3 degrees, that the stymied cap and trade policies, the wind turbines, the battery/hybrid cars, the solar collectors, the bike lanes, all of it are aimed at achieving. 3 degrees is expected to be just short of calamity (significantly higher sea levels) by the way.

          The longer we wait the harder it will be. If the estimate is off on the good side, it means it will be easier for us. If it is off on the other side, it gets harder. But any way you slice it we have to start reducing our CO2 emissions. We can’t bet the future on Jim Karlocik’s analytical skills matching wits with the large body of global climate scientists. Wouldn’t be prudent.

          • eagle eye

            Actually, I don’t completely accept it. The late 20th century warming was about 0.5 degrees K. This is what the fuss is all about. If I accept that it was due to CO2, I can triple that and get 1.5 for a doubling of CO2 completed by the end of the century. Something to be concerned about, but not to panic over.

            But it’s more complicated than that. The warming seems to have stopped, and maybe reversed, in the past 10 years or so. Even as CO2 rises at an ever faster rate. A case can even be made that temperatures now are about what they were 30 years ago. So the warming is perhaps not as great as the lower-level 0.5 estimate would imply, it may be much less than that.

            Furthermore, I’m not at all convinced that all or most of the late 20th century warming was caused by humans. The evidence for that is very soft, in my opinion. It may have been the case, but there are other plausible explanations, ones which are coming to be better known as climate science advances from its rather primitive state.

            I think at present we just don’t know what the impact of CO2 is going to be. I don’t believe anyone who claims to have the definitive answer.

            In the meantime, as far as public policy goes, I would say “First, do no harm”. Meaning don’t do something reckless, like going bonkers trying to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% in 40 years. It’s not going to happen anyway.

            I would say the most prudent thing by far would be to build nuclear plants as fast as we can.

            If we had not crazily stopped nuclear power after Three Mile Island, which is getting to be ancient history, U.S. CO2 emissions would be something on the order of a third lower than they are. And we would have cleaner air, a reliable source of electricity, and we wouldn’t be talking about crazy stuff like building a million wind turbines to replace our coal-fired electricity.

          • dean

            Eagle…nuclear plants would provide elctricity, but not home heating or transportation energy unless we switched to a battery operated vehicle system, which you have argued against. So even if we went nuclear to the extent France has done, we would not have dealt with 2/3 of the CO2 problem….assuming it is a problem. And if it is not, then why go nuclear?

            Beyond that….why nuclear? What is your preference for that energy source based on?

            I’m open to nuclear as part of a broader solution, but it would require massive government subsidies, oversight, insurance underwrites, and a waste repository that some community (state) would have to bear the burden of. Plus it generates lots of material for terrorists to play with. An expensive, problematic, partial solution at best.

          • eagle eye

            I said nuclear power would have reduced our CO2 output by a third. You say that would still leave 2/3. True, but I say a 1/3 reduction is better than nothing, which is what we’re going to have without a greatly increased nuclear generating capacity.

            Why do it if the CO2 is not a problem? First, because nuclear power is much much cleaner than coal or gas electricity. It would be a good idea even if CO2 were not a combustion product. Second, because it is a hedge against CO2. I have never said CO2 is not a problem; I have always said nobody has much idea how much of a problem it is.

            I am not against battery cars, not at all. Just show me the batteries that will do the job at a reasonable cost. There has been talk about this for 40 years, maybe longer. There has been some progress, but not enough. Maybe someday battery powered cars will be ready for prime time. If that day ever comes, we will want the juice, and nuclear power is the best way to get it.

            Nuclaar power is not the one that needs giant subsidies, it is the solar and wind that does (and they are feeble, unreliable power sources to boot, no substitute for coal or nuclear).

            The rest of the world is moving ahead on nuclear power, where the U.S. used to lead. We could easily be the world leader again. But if our reactionary opinion class wants to let the rest of the world pass us by, the world will happily oblige.

          • Anonymous

            *Dean:* nuclear plants would provide elctricity, but not home heating
            *JK:* Let me introduce you to a new idea. Resistive heating. Electricity 101. Also known as electric heat.

            *Dean:* or transportation energy unless we switched to a battery operated vehicle system,
            *JK:* Which we soon will be doing, one step at a time, via the plug in Hybrid.

            *Dean:* And if it is not, then why go nuclear?
            *JK:* The real reason to dump coal is the mercury, thorium and uranium that it puts in the air.

            *Dean:* Beyond that….why nuclear? What is your preference for that energy source based on?
            *JK:* Nuke works. Wind, solar etc are extremely limited and can only supply a tiny amount of the our current energy needs. Even Europe, the mecca for local planners, is giving up in wind. See moneyweek.com/file/49881/wind-power-is-it-a-realistic-option.html

            *Dean:* Plus it generates lots of material for terrorists to play with.
            *JK:* So why give it to terrorists? We have far more plutonium than commercial plants will ever produce in storage from dis assembled warheads. Of course these and much of the waste is really FUEL.

            *Dean:* An expensive, problematic, partial solution at best.
            *JK:* But, unlike “renewable” energy, it actually works on a large scale. When one looks closely, your real proposal is to halt man’s progress towards a better life and revert it back a few centuries where people routinely died of a cut finger and small pox was common. You ideas will kill more people than a nuclear war.

            Thanks
            JK

          • dean

            Jim and Eagle…would either of you support repeal of Price-Anderson? If it was repealed, do you think any private utility would choose to build a nuclear power plant in the US? Would any insurance company cover the liability?

            Even the Cato Institute says Price-Anderson distorts the free market and should be repealed.

            Jim…I wouldn’t “give” radioactive material to terrorists. But the more of it out there, the higher the chance they will be able to buy or steal it. They can’t do much damage to us with solar panels or wind turbines.

            Renewable enrgy works on a large scale. Denmark is geting 20% of its total electricity from wind.

            No…my “real proposal” is nothing of the sort Jim. That is a straw man argument. Maybe we just have different visions of what progress amounts to in this day and age.

          • eagle eye

            No, I wouldn’t repeal Price Anderson. Given the insane tort system in this country, and given the hysteria and ignorance re all things nuclear, I don’t see how we would have a nuclear industry in this country without it. Even though the actual risks even of a catastrophic nuclear accident are far lower than countless other catastrophic risks.

            I don’t much care what the Cato Institute says about this, or a lot of other things.

          • dean

            That’s saying then that you support a subsidy to get the type of energy you think we need. Potentially a very huge subsidy. No different then than others supporting subsidies for solar or wind. It comes down to choosing.

            I agree with you the risk of a catostrophic nuclear accident is small. Unfortunately it only takes one getting out of hand. And the more plants one has the higher the risk goes. Plus there is that pesky storage of waste issue.

            But…today if I had to choose between coal and nuclear I would pick the latter. I don’t think we are at that point yet because we have some other options.

          • eagle eye

            No, I don’t agree it’s a subsidy. It’s a matter of “market failure” brought on by our insane legal system. It actually hasn’t cost anybody a dime. Other countries can produce nuclear power quite efficiently — maybe we can learn from France and China. If we want to let the world pass us by, it’s our choice, but I would like us to once again reclaim the lead in the technology we pioneered.

          • dean

            Eagle…there is the technology and then there is the economics. Whatever one thinks of the former, the latter is not good. The high capital cost has made new nuke plants uneconomic in a deregulated wholesale energy market, where the builder of the plant has to eat the overruns and the time cost of money. Energy producers can’t lock in long term generation contracts, so they favor lower capital costs that can be recouped sooner. France does not have that issue because the utility and the nuclear plants are all state monopolies. They don’t have to worry about someone building a better mousetrap 5 or 10 years down the road, and they can build plants quicker and cheaper because they are in charge of themselves. They are not looking over the shoulder of others.

            We would have to re-regulate and or nationalize power generation to have a nuke program like the French. Or we would have to subsidize the capital costs for private producers.

            If we had a sufficient carbon tax on coal, then nukes might be able to compete. But I know how you feel about that option.

            The nuclear power 2010 program (the legislation that is behind our few nuke plants under development) heavily subsidizes hem to get the utilities to try them once again. The federal government has guarenteed to cover cost overrruns that exceed $500 million. And they (we) are providing a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per KWH, basicaly the same credit that wind energy is getting.

            Subsidies….market manipulation….call it what you want. Nuclear plants are not currently competitive in the “free market” of US energy.

  • Anonymous

    Dean and David are propagansists who never tire from making things up or repeating the AGW lies from others.

    One of their frequent echoes is the farce that no skeptics are peer reviewed experts.

    http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/peer-reviewed-papers-support-climate-sceptics/

    Global Warming Facts
    Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
    http://www.GetEnergyActive.org

    Over and over again, in the great Climate Debate, we read that “not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper supports the sceptics”. This claim came up recently in a comment from Julian Lees, which appeared on my earlier blog item “Driving to a greener future”. I think the claim originated with Al Gore, and like so much that Al Gore says, it’s transparent nonsense. On the contrary, we have recently seen a steady increase in the number of peer-reviewed sceptical papers.

    2007 alone has provided an abundance of peer-reviewed papers debunking the man-made CO2 “consensus”. A recent survey of peer-reviewed papers from 2004-2007 reveals that less than half of published papers endorse man-made global warming theory. In the past 4 months, there has been a rush of sceptical peer-reviewed papers. A good reference is the US Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8 < http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8>

    Even the impeccably correct New York Times admits that the earth is well within natural climate variability. All the promoters of climate alarmism have to go on are unproven computer model predictions of doom. But two top UN scientists admit models are not predictions and are not reliable. (Renwick and Trebwernth)

    Antarctic Sea ice is at an historic maximum, and Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Greenland has COOLED since the ’30 and ‘40s. (Follow the Greenland link in report above — peer-reviewed studies literally make a mockery of Greenland melt fears). Even the UK Met Office concedes that global warming has stopped in past few years. The southern hemisphere is cooling. Alarmists should really go and check the literature before insisting that “all serious scientists endorse man-made global warming”.

  • John in Oregon

    I would never hold out short term trends as a prediction of the future. However short term trends are necessary to know what is happening now.

    The satellite temperature numbers are in for June and the Global Temperature remains low continuing a 19 month trend of lower temperatures.

    RSS MSU Global Temperature Anomaly
    Monthly Means of the lower Troposphere V3.01
    Remains low for June, 2008 at *0.035 Degree*

    UAH Monthly Means of the lower Troposphere LT5.2
    Global Temperature Anomaly
    Remains low for June, 2008 at *-0.114 Degree*

    As of today the sun remains quiet continuing a dead face sun trend.

    For a longer trend, the 11 year trend 97-08 for temperature (linear) is:
    Had Curt 3 down slightly.
    RSS down slightly.
    UAH flat.

    I did notice one rather amusing fact recently. Back in June of 1988 Dr. James Hansen announced his change in position from a coming global ice age to global warming during an address to Congress. This last June Dr. Hansen gave his 20 year anniversary speech before Congress, in which he called for putting “energy executives on trial for crimes against humanity and nature”.

    Meanwhile a “pundit” took a few moments to check the temperature records to find:
    From June 1988 UAH is *Down 0.204 Degree in June 2008.*
    From June 1988 RSS is *Down 0.056 Degree in June 2008.*
    🙂

    JK, David commented about his background some time back so that’s not really new. I actually found it very refreshing that David has not flaunted his education or journalistic accomplishments here as a basis for supporting his arguments.

    David you commented > *This is the same scientific method you reply on to demonstrate the safety of the medication you take, the airplanes you fly on, the cars you drive, the lasers that scan your groceries at the checkout counter, the GM crops being planted all over the country, and the information you might receive from genetic counseling.*

    David this is at the heart of where you and I have often disagreed.

    The standard double blind protocol for medication testing you mentioned is an excellent example. For those that may not have considered double blind testing, normally half of the patients are given the test medication and the other half given a placebo. With real people the placebo effect is powerful.

    The second part is less well understood. The evaluating physician does not know which patients get the active drug and which the placebo. This is not done to keep the patient in the dark. Its done to prevent unintentional bias on the part of the examining physician. To prevent an unintentional self fulfilling prophecy.

    From an engineering prospective, which is my prospective, we learn by success and mistakes. Airplanes, cars, bridges, and buildings are safer because we learn. On 9/11 the WTC towers stood after the assault for an astonishingly long time. And yet Engineers looked at what failed.

    For an Engineer the Cardinal Sin is bias, coloring or falsifying data.

    Yet on a daily basis I see AGW models, which are an investigative tool, being used for prediction. Being promoted, by those who should know better, to drive political and economic policy.

    Sure the models are tested for “Hindcasting” as though that makes them valid for prediction. I see the AGW debate lacking even the most basic of safeguards and accountability. The chief propionate of AGW is the custodian of one of the temperature records used to evaluate AGW. Pardon me but I see those as significant departures from the spirit if not the letter of the Scientific Method.

    David you commented > *Hardly. Religions rely on faith. AGW has been proven by the scientific method. That is, taking the hypothesis of AGW, postdictions (sic) and predictions were made that are accurate.*

    I grew up in the Baptist church which was the “liberal” church in the area at the time. I have seen faith, seen it applied and misapplied.

    To be honest I see little difference between what many vocal propionates of AGW say and do and that of faith. Little difference except that most religious faith has a social basis in the truth of history.

    BTW for those that may not know, the definition of postdiction is 20 – 20 hindcasting.

  • Suetonius101

    You’re full of Shit

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)