Representative Matt Wingard: More climate change doomsday

By State Representative Matt Wingard,

This month I attended the annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) held in Boise, Idaho (Nice town). PNWER is made up of private sector CEOs and legislators from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan who get together and solve regional energy, trade and transportation problems. As you can imagine “climate change” is a big issue and was brought up a number of times at the conference. I spent most of my time in a windowless room with 20 other legislators learning about Energy Policy. However, I was struck by a moment during lunch on the second day. There were about 500 attendees gathered in the main room to hear our lunch-time speaker.

At one point, our speaker asked those of us in the audience who believed in man-caused global warming to raise our hands. Bear in mind that the room was half politicians and half business leaders. It was also nearly half Canadians, and British Columbia had recently passed a carbon tax.

It looked to me like slightly less than half of the room raised their hand.

I was shocked and disappointed.

Shocked that so many smart, intelligent people understood how dangerous the “Global Climate Change” movement is and delighted that so many had the courage to say so (even if it was at a far away conference). We were clearly the silent majority but the call for action on Climate Change persisted throughout the conference. The phrase I heard most often was something along the lines of “It’s so far along that we have to find a way to make Cap and Trade work” or “It’s inevitable” or “Something politically is going to happen, so we had better prepare”.

How about “Hell No!”?

That’s why I was so disappointed.

After more than a decade of scary “evidence” and Doomsday predictions that man-made carbon emissions will shortly destroy the Earth so many smart people still see it for what it is–propaganda, the misuse of science and dogma.

…But the regulations and economic restrictions move forward.

If everyone in that room who opposed Cap and Trade had the courage to fight it publicly, state and federal legislation wouldn’t stand a chance.

Folks, your elected officials are mostly cowards. I’m not stating that as a judgment. I’m telling you that as a fact. Politicians mostly lead parades. They don’t organize them.

Your elected officials and local business leaders need to hear from everyone who opposes the radical Green agenda. Their courage comes from us.

There was hope in that room in Boise. You’re not alone in the fight to save capitalism, free markets and honest scientific inquiry.

What our side needs is more courage.

—————–
This article is part of a collection of excellent items found in the email newsletter called, the Wingard Report. You can join the Wingard Report by emailing: [email protected]

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

Posted by at 05:59 | Posted in Measure 37 | 111 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • jim karlock

    *For the graft and corruption in this movement, see*

    SustainableOregon.com

    and click on “Big Money In Scaring People”

    Thanks
    JK

    • Dian

      Thank you for suggesting that website, All of you should look at it. I knew about all the Money Gore made with this nonsense, but not the rest. Now I do.

      People are sure gullible, especially educated people. Maybe like David Appell they can’t see the forest for the trees.

      I was taught to read, learn and see for myuself the truth of things. That seems to have gone by the way side. We let our fear lead us.

      • anon

        Yeah… interesting angle.

        I wonder if Rep. Wingard will unequivocally condemn people who make money by holding events centered around the exaggerated need for green and renewable energies.

        That would be a great statement, don’t you think?

  • Anonymous

    Remember when we use to make fun of primitive cultures because they use to think they controlled the weather or the sun rise with rituals and dances.

    Now many people discount the power of the sun.
    That is 100 times bigger than the earth and many many more times bigger than all the SUV’s on the planet.

  • Ron Glynn

    I am standing on my feet in front of my computer monitor giving Mr. Wingard a Standing Ovation.

  • David Appell

    It’s basic physics that if you add greenhouse gases to a planet’s atmosphere, that planet will heat up. As ours is doing.

    * carbon dioxide levels are at a 2.1 million+ year high
    * this is the warmest decade in recorded history; second warmest was the 1990s
    * by one measure (NASA GISS), 2005 was the warmest year in recorded history.
    * Last month was the 2nd warmest June in recorded history.
    * July 14th of this year may have been the warmest day in recorded history.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Well, this assumes one accepts a lot of postulates.

      First, this assumes we can trust GISS numbers, the organization is run by a radical AGW’er who has called for the death penalty for CEO’s and has twice been caught making up numbers for political reasons of James Hansen, GISS head. But nevertheless, let’s say we accept the numbers.

      OK, so what’s the point of the CO2 number? We are supposed to accept CO2 driving global temperature is a proven theory? Its not but for the sake of argument lets accept that it is. What’s the relevance?

      Well, there is absolutely no relevance unless we also accept that mankind is adding to the CO2 in a way that causes steadily increasing levels. In other words, we would not care about CO2, assuming we even accept the CO2 driving temperature hypothesis, if the supposed high represents a peak in a naturally occurring oscillation. If the CO2 were oscillating and we simply were at a peak then who cares. If it represented a steady increase, due to man, then we would care, if the CO2 driving hypothesis were shown to be true.

      Well, at this point the whole thing falls apart, basically from the shear weight of what one is asked to accept. Simply put, if CO2 did drive temperature and CO2 levels were steadily increasing, we would see a steady increase in temperature over the last 2.1 million years, which is the time period you seem to be concerned with. When we look at the temperature charts we see no such thing. Ok, there is a second option, a spike in CO2 levels due to mans industrialization. If that were the case we should see relatively steady temperatures, due to relatively steady CO2 levels because of mans absence for the last 2.1 million years with a massive uptick in the last hundred years with almost no oscillation in that hundred year period. But again, we see no such thing. Over the last 2.1 million years we see a certain amount of oscillation, wild oscillation in the Pleistocene period and smaller oscillations with a gradual cooling trend in the following Holocene period to present time. Thus looking over the 2.1 million years you seem to feel is the relevant period, we see nothing to endorse the man made hypothesis.

      Sure it is basic physics, if you add greenhouse gases to a system, it will warm up. However surely you, as a physicist, should know that this statement is absolutely worthless in terms of scientific inquiry as it has absolutely no error analysis or quantitative aspects to it. How much will the system heat up with the addition of a known amount of green house gas? With what certainty can that effect be predicted?

      If I add a grain of salt to the ocean, sure I increase its salinity.

      • David Appell

        > Well, this assumes one accepts a lot of postulates.

        A postulate *is* an assumption. One has no choice but to assume it.

        > First, this assumes we can trust GISS numbers, the organization is run by a
        > radical AGW’er who has called for the death penalty for CEO’s and has twice been
        > caught making up numbers for political reasons of James Hansen, GISS head.

        Bullshit. Hansen never “made up” numbers, and you have absolutely no proof that he did. There were errors in GISS data, just as there are errors in all scientific data, and errors in your own checkbook. Errors occur in science all the time. They also get fixed all the time, which is what GISS did.

        > OK, so what’s the point of the CO2 number? We are supposed to accept CO2 driving
        > global temperature is a proven theory?

        Yes, because it is. It was proven well over 100 years ago. See Fourier, especially Tyndall, and then Arrhenius. This fact is about as established as science gets.

        > In other words, we would not care about CO2, assuming we
        > even accept the CO2 driving temperature hypothesis, if the supposed high
        > represents a peak in a naturally occurring oscillation.

        The anthropogenic nature of the additional CO2 in our atmosphere is well known from a simple study of its radioactivity and carbon isotopes.

        > Well, at this point the whole thing falls apart, basically from the shear weight
        > of what one is asked to accept. Simply put, if CO2 did drive temperature and
        > CO2 levels were steadily increasing, we would see a steady increase in temperature
        > over the last 2.1 million years,

        Extremely incorrect. CO2 levels have not been increasing for 2.1My — they are higher than they have been for 2.1My. They have been increasing sharply since about 1750, which is also about when the Industrial Revolution began.

        > we should see relatively steady temperatures

        Extremely incorrect, because carbon dioxide is hardly the only forcing on the atmosphere. The forces are many (some natural, some not) and well known and their radiative factors have been determined — see the IPCC 4AR. They mesh together to give a complex picture, compounded by the inherent nonlinearity of the underlying physical laws, but calculations show that CO2 is one of the larger forcings.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >A postulate is an assumption. One has no choice but to assume it.

          Right, and I said assuming one accepts your postulates.

          That has nothing to do with the definition of the word postulate, it has to do with whether one accepts your postulates for the sake of argument or not.

          Why in the world do you think it necessary to define a word I used in a sentence?

          I am unsure how defining a word here and there that I used correctly has much relevance.

          Did you even read the sentence you were responding to before thinking it somehow pertinent to offer a definition of the word “postulate” for apparently no reason whatsoever?

          >Bullshit. Hansen never “made up” numbers, and you have absolutely no proof that he did.

          I know I have more proof than Hansen does of AGW.

          I know I can predict Hansen’s behaviour better than he can predict AGW.

          When you are head of a multi million dollar organization and get caught twice by bloggers with really obvious mistakes always going in the same direction, one has concern. When that direction, support of AGW, is directly related to the amount of funding his organization receives it strains credulity to think these were simple mistakes. In addition, we have the example that Hansen tended to release at least one set of numbers ( the October surprise ) with much press fanfare. It simply is not credible that his legions of scientists make mistakes in always the same direction, that benefits them, and yet bloggers can spot them in their spare time.

          >This fact is about as established as science gets.

          No its not. My BS detector goes off real quick when someone does the “see Fourier et. al. …” thing. If these people had proven this, then we would sure see a lot of temperature graphs showing temperature following CO2. We don’t. We also would hardly see this as the contentious issue it is among more than a few scientists. It just simply is not at all established science in the way you seem to be under the impression it is.

          >The anthropogenic nature of the additional CO2 in our atmosphere is well known from a simple study of its radioactivity and carbon isotopes.

          Did anyone ever argue man did not put CO2 into the atmosphere? I sure didn’t. What are you on about here?

          >Extremely incorrect. CO2 levels have not been increasing for 2.1My — they are higher than they have been for 2.1My.

          Then what the hell are you doing citing this 2.1 million year number?

          Was that simply to give a big number to make things sound impressive?

          >Extremely incorrect, because carbon dioxide is hardly the only forcing on the atmosphere.

          Do the words extremely incorrect refer to your writing ability?

          you are the one who brought up CO2, you are the one who was making a big deal out of it with this 2.1 million year crap, now you are saying I’m wrong for focusing on it?

          What the hell is that?

          >The forces are many (some natural, some not) and well known and their radiative factors have been determined

          LoL – To use your words, “Extremely incorrect”.

          There are studies all the time on what forces weather. The idea that we have a comprehensive understanding of the forces that act on weather is absolutely absurd.

          I am surprised you make this statement as it is so easily disproven. After all, if the forces that acted on weather were well known, then we could predict the weather with a high degree of certainty.

          We know that we cannot do this thanks in part to James Hansen.

          Hansen would not have made his October surprise, based on erroneous gathered temperature data because he would have found it was far out of bounds of predicted temperature expectations. He would have double checked, why did October fall so far out of bounds of what was predicted?

          The answer is the forces that affect weather are not well known in the sense that we have any comprehensive understanding of them.

          >They mesh together to give a complex picture, compounded by the inherent nonlinearity of the underlying physical laws, but calculations show that CO2 is one of the larger forcings.

          OK – So now we are back to CO2 being one of the larger forcings after you just got through with your “extremely incorrect” silliness castigating me for saying we should be seeing some steady increase upwards.

          Basically this is really starting to sound like, if its warm as predicted, you want to say “see, CO2, that’s it, its forcing it”. If its cool, and doesn’t follow predictions, you want to say “see other forcing things”.

          • Anonymous

            David’s off his meds again.

          • David Appell

            >> Hansen never “made up” numbers, and you have absolutely no proof that he did.

            > I know I have more proof than Hansen does of AGW.

            Still bullshit. You have shown no proof whatsoever that Hansen “made up” numbers. If so, present it. If not, then have some honor and retract it.

          • David Appell

            > It simply is not credible that his legions of scientists make
            > mistakes in always the same direction, that benefits them,

            Making a mistake in any direction doesn’t benefit them at all, as it will eventually be corrected one way or the other.

            Besides, GISS revises their data *all the time*. Every month, at least. Monthly data going back sometimes several years is revised as new/corrected/better data comes in and as their analysis gets more perfected. This is the essence of doing good science.

          • David Appell

            > The idea that we have a comprehensive understanding of the forces that act on
            > weather is absolutely absurd.

            We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate, ie. long-term averaged weather. The forcings are listed prominently in all the IPCC reports. See, for example, IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch2 FAQ 2.1 Fig 2 p 136.

          • David Appell

            > Hansen would not have made his October surprise, based on erroneous
            > gathered temperature data

            The error had nothing to do with “gathered data.” It was the result of a faulty program that transmitted old data instead of new data. As high-level management at GISS, Hansen is not involved in the day-to-day gathering of such data or in its analysis.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            OK – Good, we are not discussing the definition of postulate anymore. Whew.

            >As high-level management at GISS, Hansen is not involved in the day-to-day gathering of such data or in its analysis.

            He runs the department and makes the bogus pronouncements. He is responsible for what comes out of it, especially if he is announcing the results and fighting the corrections.

            You would think that after being caught once by bloggers at these shenanigans, Hansen would double check when he got an anomalous result.

            Or instructed an underling. There, satisfied?

            The point is, I can predict which way Hansen’s errors will be off far better than Hansen can predict the temperature.

            I simply don’t regard Hansen or GISS as reliable. When the mistakes are always in the direction of support for a hypothesis the man is an absolute zealot for ( sorry, calling for mass murder trials of CEO’s qualifies him as a zealot ) it starts looking fairly fishy. When the man fights correcting himself, as he did until the very end with his 1998 warmest year scandal, at that point the scales tip. The man is just simply not credible and not to be taken very seriously.

            Absent one or two of those things, sure, simple mistake. When the total picture of the man is taken into account? No way.

            As for my honor, its more intact than Hansen’s. Frankly if that guy had any honor he would have resigned after these two major errors. Clearly he is running an organization where results that support his beliefs are not checked with any rigor. When bloggers are the fact checker for a multi million dollar department, its time to step down and take your zealotry on the campaign trail, not the scientific one.

          • David Appell

            GISS’s errors were hardly “major.”

            Should the skeptics Christy and Spencer have resigned after their years-long error on satellite corrections for tropospheric bulk temperatures? That was far, far more significant in the history of climate science.

          • David Appell

            I didn’t think you had any evidence that “Hansen made up data.” And you don’t. You are without honor, because you refuse to even admit that and continue to make the claim.

          • David Appell

            > He runs the department and makes the bogus pronouncements. He is
            > responsible for what comes out of it, especially if he is announcing the results
            > and fighting the corrections.

            Hansen does not make any “announcements” about their climate data, and neither does GISS. The data is published on their Web site monthly, with no fanfare. Eventually it is published in the peer-reviewed literature.

            Nor is he “fighting” any corrections. In the two instances you cite, GISS investigated the alleged error, found it was a problem, corrected it, and changed their data quality procedures to hopefully prevent the error.

            What do you do when you make an error?

          • David Appell

            > OK – So now we are back to CO2 being one of the larger forcings after you just
            > got through with your “extremely incorrect” silliness castigating me for saying
            > we should be seeing some steady increase upwards.

            Unfortunately the situation is not simple, so you might have to pay special attention here. Again, see the IPCC chart referred to above. New CO2 is certainly a large forcing, currently at about 1.7 W/m2. Other new GHGs are at about 1.0 W/m2, and ozone about 0.4 W/m2. Aerosols and land use changes are negative forcings, but each less than -1 W/m2. Solar irradiance changes are only about 0.l W/m2. Total net human forcing is about 1.6 +/- 0.9 W/m2.

            So, there are many forcings on climate. Just because one is largest doesn’t mean it is always dominant, or that the others don’ matter, or that there aren’t nonlinear feedback effects. You might like everything in a simple little package, but that’s not possible here.

            But the point is, CO2 is such a (relatively) strong GHG, and we are putting such large amounts of it into the atmosphere, that over time (ie decades to centuries) its cumulative effects are large compared to other forcings. *That* is the basis for all the concern, and not even so much the 0.8 C rise in temperature last century. That is, it’s basic physics — CO2 warms atmospheres. it’s basic physics.

  • valley person

    “At one point, our speaker asked those of us in the audience who believed in man-caused global warming to raise our hands.”

    Man-caused global warming is not something to believe in or not believe in. One either trusts the findings of science as our best interpretation of physical reality or one doesn’t. Its not about “beliefs.”

    “After more than a decade of scary “evidence” and Doomsday predictions that man-made carbon emissions will shortly destroy the Earth ….”

    A mischaracterization. Science has been warning society about a gradual buildup of greenhouse gasses leading to a gradual warming that will become increasingly difficult to stop because some greenhouse gasses, notably CO2, have a long shelf life once they are in the atmosphere. The call has been for quick ACTION to forestall long term problems. Not that carbon emissions will “shortly destroy the earth.” The earth will survive no matter what we do. We should be concerned about ourselves, our kids and grandkids, and our economy.

    “Folks, your elected officials are mostly cowards. I’m not stating that as a judgment. I’m telling you that as a fact. ”

    No, you are stating it as an opinion. Which you are entitled to. But confusing fact and opinion is a big part of the problem with the entire anti AGW thesis.

    “Your elected officials and local business leaders need to hear from everyone who opposes the radical Green agenda. ”

    Since a majority of Americans support action on greenhouse gasses, and since a majority in Congress appear to do so, and since both presidential candidates supported this in the last election, it is more than a stretch to call proposed action a “radical green agenda.” It is a mainstream agenda, and those who insist we ignore facts and choose to do nothing are the radicals here.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >It is a mainstream agenda, and those who insist we ignore facts and choose to do nothing are the radicals here.

      LOL

      What a joke.

      Look, if it was a mainstream agenda, you wouldn’t have cap and tax passing by just a couple of votes after a lot of arm twisting. this stuff would be sailing through congress.

      I sure don’t see a lot of politicians running on this “mainstream” agenda. Who knows though, maybe we will see a lot of them in 2010 running ads boasting that they voted for cap and tax. I doubt it though.

      The second I see politicians lining up gladly to sign on to things like cap and tax, rather than having to have their arms twisted to vote for the thing Ill believe you.

      Until then, looks to me like most of the agenda is something that has to be crammed down peoples throats.

      People like the “green” thing so long as it is confined to things like buying the right laundry detergent. As far as the AGW agenda? No way is that a mainstream agenda. Try passing a tax on gasoline to account for the famed “externalities” if you don’t believe me.

      • valley person

        “Look, if it was a mainstream agenda, you wouldn’t have cap and tax passing by just a couple of votes…”

        Key phrase being “passing by a couple of votes.” That makes it a majority position of the elected representatives of the people of the United states. And a good number, including your own representative Peter Defazio, voted against the bill only because it was not strong enough and gave too many of the carbon credits away for free.

        OK. How does a majority vote, backed by a majority public opinion by the way, qualify as “radical?”

        “I sure don’t see a lot of politicians running on this “mainstream” agenda.”

        How does both major party presidential candidates in the last election sound? OK, that is not “a lot.” But between them they got 99% of the vote. And democrats, generally supportive of climate change legislation, did not do so bad at all levels.

        “The second I see politicians lining up gladly to sign on to things like cap and tax…”

        There is no tax in the legislation passed by the House. None. To claim otherwise deomstrates being reality challenged. So since there was no cap and tax, there was no need to sign onto it.

        “Try passing a tax on gasoline to account for the famed “externalities” if you don’t believe me. ”

        People’s aversion to being taxed should not be confused with their feelings on the need to do something about climate change even if it costs them money. 58% of the public in a recent Wall Street Journal poll supported climate change legislation even if it raised the cost of energy. 53% did the same in an ABC poll.
        http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/polls-show-opposition-message-0233.html

        This is your cue to start calling me names or renew your campaign to have me banned from Catalyst.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >This is your cue to start calling me names or renew your campaign to have me banned from Catalyst.

          What’s with this “campaign to have you banned”? BS

          I’m not sure I have ever really said much of anything on you getting banned in the past. Frankly I don’t even know why you were banned.

          My guess is because of the incessant name calling you tend to engage in but I don’t know.

          My only argument with you is you tend to not think and just pop off and generally don’t put a lot of thought into whatever point you are trying to make and then turn it into a name calling contest when you can’t admit you are wrong.

          I never had a campaign to get you banned and have never rally even suggested you be banned ( other than over your ugly racial comments during the campaign, I think I did suggest it then, that was one post ).

          You really are a paranoid guy Dean. I have no idea what you are on about but maybe its time to go for a walk or get out of the house or something.

        • Alyssa Eggebrecht

          “Valley Person,”

          Your last comment, “People’s aversion to being taxed should not be confused with their feelings on the need to do something about climate change even if it costs them money.”

          I’m not convinced that your argument has any rational basis. You say people should not confuse their aversion to taxation with the need to so something about climate change; however, the very solution that is being proposed is taxation on carbon emissions. If you want a solution to climate change, don’t decide on a solution that people will be adverse to (e.g. taxation).

          Also what is your rational that money is always the solution to a problem? Sometimes, I use money to avoid a problem, and that seems to be what this forced taxation of carbon emissions is really about.

          Solving problems usually involves actual work, meaning that a solution is produced that can be modeled and executed by others. Simply paying a tax to supposedly cure the world of climate change isn’t much of a solution that requires a great deal of work.

          Essentially you are hoping that by reprimanding people, you’ll force them to change their behavior. An example of this line of “logic” is trying to modify societies’ behavior to the will or liking of value judging groups by placing “sin taxes” on activities such as, the consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling. Yet, these behaviors still exist within society, and despite individuals being coerced into paying what amounts to as an indulgence fee, this excise tax does not curb the behavior. Those individuals who abhor the companies that profit of off societies’ indiscretions are also more than willing to profit off of the same individuals and corporations to promote their own lifestyles and standards of living.

          Like a child who is punished for perceived undesirable behavior, that child will usually search out more cunning techniques to continue acting in a way that feels natural to him. I myself do not believe that I am carrying out actions that will plummet this planet into an apocalyptic climate change, and until I am convinced otherwise, I’m not changing my actions, behavior or choices.

          So you see, I am either not willing to change a particular behavior of mine, or I’m just not sure what exactly I’m supposed to be changing. As, “to my tax dollars at work,” they will be just as ineffectual as they ever were, because it is people that do work not money. This is why money can’t solve problems – those dollar bills don’t do the work or thinking for us.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Also what is your rational that money is always the solution to a problem?

            >Essentially you are hoping that by reprimanding people, you’ll force them to change their behavior.

            Because that’s the AGW agenda.

            Dean does like to shift words so that he can construct an argument you may never have made, but which he feels he can refute.

            This is why he shifted from my argument, that the AGW agenda is not mainstream, to an argument about the popularity of AGW itself. That’s not the same thing. The agenda of the AGW movement is to change behaviour through taxation. People obviously have huge problems with that. Politicians rarely run on that agenda and in fact will run from it if anyone suggests that if elected, so and so will raise your taxes on any number of things AGW believers don’t like.

            Dean didn’t want to debate that, but felt a need to respond so tried shifting the argument to one not about the agenda, which is what I was talking about.

            It’s kind of a silly tactic and frankly I have no idea who really finds it convincing. I sure don’t. I am fairly sure not many do, as when I asked Dean if he could produce five friends who found his method of debate convincing that I could actually meet, he regarded it as quite a hurdle to overcome.

          • v. person

            Alyssa writes: “You say people should not confuse their aversion to taxation with the need to so something about climate change; however, the very solution that is being proposed is taxation on carbon emissions.”

            The solution on the table, the Waxman-Markey bill, does not “tax” carbon emissions or anything else. It issues permits to emit carbon, and limits these permits to a certain amount, then ratchets that amount down over time. Permits are mostly given away, and are tradeable.

            “Also what is your rational that money is always the solution to a problem? ”

            I did not say that nor did I mean to imply it. Assuming that global warming is a problem largely caused by human generated greenhouse gasses, we need some method to get people to emit less of those gasses. There are 3 basic alternatives: 1) call CO2 a pollutant and make it illegal to discharge it into community property, i.e. the air. We have done this in the past with various pollutants successfully. 2) Put a tax on it at a high enough level to encourage people to use less of it and switch to other alternatives. Most economists think this is the most efficient way to solve the problem, but most politicians think otherwise. 3) Cap and trade, which sort of blends 1 and 2 by limiting the amount of CO2 that can be discharged and setting up a market system to determine the value of discharges.

            “Simply paying a tax to supposedly cure the world of climate change isn’t much of a solution that requires a great deal of work.”

            As I said, Cap and trade is not a tax. But if the tax option were chosen, it would do more than just raise the price of carbon burning. It would spur people to insulate their homes, buy more efficient vehicles, bicycle to work, and so forth. Also entrepeneurs would invent new energy saving gizmos. People respond to price. Its basic economics. I did not make it up, and it is entirely rational.

            “Essentially you are hoping that by reprimanding people, you’ll force them to change their behavior”

            Quite the opposite. I think reprimanding adults is useless. Raising the price and/or limiting the amount of discharge are both proven methods for reducing pollution. Reprimanding is not.

            On sin taxes, they do work. Smoking is down, and drops further every time taxes are raised. But limiting CO2 is not like a sin tax. The problem with CO2 is that your emissions harm me and my kids and their kids and kids all over the world. If you smoke, I don’t really care as long as you don’t do it in a room I am in.

            “I myself do not believe that I am carrying out actions that will plummet this planet into an apocalyptic climate change, and until I am convinced otherwise, I’m not changing my actions, behavior or choices.”

            Right, and I have no hope of convincing you since the world’s climate scientists have been unable to do so. But if Congrress limits the total amount of CO2 discharged, then you will probably use less of it whether you want to or not. And you may hardly notice the difference.

            ” As, “to my tax dollars at work,” they will be just as ineffectual as they ever were, because it is people that do work not money. This is why money can’t solve problems – those dollar bills don’t do the work or thinking for us.”

            You flunked capitalism 101 there Alyssa. Money definitely does work, just indirectly by paying people to do what needs to be done, or by signaling them that if they do A rather than B they will be better or worse off.

            Rupert writes: “Because that’s the AGW agenda. ”

            Maybe you think so, but I don’t. Reprimanding is useless. Education has some value. Limiting emissions and ratcheting down the amounts has much more value. The beauty is I don’t have to persuade you of anything. You will act in your own interest and end up conserving more.

            “This is why he shifted from my argument, that the AGW agenda is not mainstream,…”

            I know this is hard for you Rupert, but what I actually did was to counter your argument by pointing out that support for dealing with AGW is indeed mainstream by citing pertinent facts. You can’t deal when facts challenge your assertions, so you retreat to your attack dean comfort corner by rummaging through and resurfacing whatever mischaracterization of a past remark I may or may not have made suits you . I imagine you there holding a blankie and sucking on your thumb, trying to remember things I or someone named dean wrote long ago and far away.

          • Alyssa Eggebrecht

            Wow, um I am not Rupert, so please be kind enough to not refer to me as this person. Before you decide to insult someone, it usually helps to be addressing a person that you actually know. Obviously, you have no clue that an Alyssa Eggebrecht really exists, and somehow feel compelled to incorrectly attach my identity to this Rupert fellow.

            Secondly, as an economics student with a degree in economics, we generally do not take courses strictly in “capitalism” per se, but rather a course that discusses forms of market “extremes,” which we build our theories off of, and that is laissez faire or “free market” and “command economics” or an economy instituted via central planning. Of course, there are also the “mixed economic systems” or what many refer to as socialism.

            When one discusses “money working,” they are employing a writing device known as anthropomorphism and at the same time creating a metaphor. Obviously though, you are a person who can only interpret words in their literal context. Economists use this device to explain monetarism and banking, which is a sub study of macroeconomics.

            By the way, another famous metaphor that economists use is Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” but I suppose you interpret this as a real thing organizing a free market economy.

          • v. person

            I knew I was responding to Alyssa first, then Rupert 2nd. Its right there in my post. Please re-read.

            I meant no insult to you whatsoever. I apologize for whatever I said that came across that way.

            I did mean to tweak Rupert a bit, and make no apologies there.

            As far as economics goes, I defer to your greater scholorship. Nevertheless, I don’t understand how you can be an economics student and not seem to get that when something is made more scarce or costly, people usually make do with less of it, while when something is granted absolutely free (i.e. the right to pollute) than people will gladly take advantage. And I don’t understand how you view Waxman-Markey as a tax. It simply isn’t.

          • Alyssa Eggebrecht

            Ok “person,”

            I am glad you are interested in learning something.

            You asked me why I do not understand, “…when something is made more scarce or costly, people usually make do with less of it, while when something is granted absolutely free (i.e. the right to pollute) than people will gladly take advantage.”

            Ok first, I think you are confusing three concepts: scarcity, shortage, and surplus.

            Scarcity is a result of the natural supply of resources at a given point in time. For example, if I had the ability to count all the trees in the world within a matter of seconds, within that moment, the supply of trees would equal my count. Therefore, my count would represent a level of scarcity in the amount of trees worldwide.

            Shortages and Surpluses result from intervention, and usually come about through government regulation. For example, if a world government existed and was able to decree the lowest price anyone person could pay for a tree was $1 million USD, then there would be a surplus of trees in the tree market. Now if this world government instead decreed that only the trees in Canada were allowed for sale, well then there would result a shortage of trees in the tree market. The former is what is known as a price floor, and the later is known as a production quota.

            Another example of a shortage is when prices are set below market prices, known as a price ceiling. For example, if Obama says that doctors in the US can charge no more than $50.00 per medical service, then probably all one would receive is an unfriendly office visit and an aspirin. There would be a shortage of all complex medical services, because the maximum fee that a doctor could receive as compensation would not cover the expenses of the more complex medical services.

            The problem with “artificially” setting prices is that people, both buyers and sellers, know that there is either more or less of a good, resource, service out there, and they will create “new markets” or “black markets” to optimize their situation. Economists also refer to this whole dynamic process as market distortions, when the true state of supply and demand in markets is obscured by some confounding variable/mechanism.

            The issue with pollution, and its negative effects on the environment, is not that our problems can be laid at the doorstep of “horrible capitalist corporations,” it’s that we as individuals do not pay for the full cost of maintaining our environment. We have allowed governments (city, county, state) to obscure property rights, and the liabilities that are associated with those rights, along with supposed “public services.” The true cost of public services, such as collecting garbage, recycling, water treatment, and all the plethora of “land maintenance and care” services that governments take on often fall short in one way or another. This is because there effectively exists both price ceilings and quotas in the services they try to full fill or either contract to companies outside of competitive market mechanisms.

            Deregulation, which almost always leads to more competition, and buyers directly contracting with sellers is the best way of covering personal liabilities, driving down costs, and distributing the appropriate quantity of resources, goods, and services that are needed by societies.

            With respect to the Waxman-Markey legislation, cap-and-trade programs incentivize regulated, uncompetitive energy companies; to instead pass on government imposed fees, fines, and taxes onto customers rather than upgrade current infrastructure to regulatory standards. Also, because of geography, population distribution, market share, and quantity of energy services available, it makes it easy for energy companies to price discriminate; and therefore consumers will disproportionately pay these passed on costs. Therefore, even though the cap-and-trade does not legislate a direct tax on consumers, in effect there will be an indirect tax, which many research papers show that the poorer rungs of society will be stuck paying.

            I hope you read this “person,” because it took me a hell of a long time to explain this. However, since you challenged my education and background in the field of economics, I had better take the time to school your confused assertions and ideas.

          • v. person

            I read it. Thanks for taking the time. What you are describing is classic free market economics, which as you seem to have picked up, does not have much use for government intervention due to the market distortions you give good examples of. I’m not a free marketer. I’m a mixed economyer…or whatever word works to describe a hybrid economy that has a regulated free market along with social spending to plug the gaps. In oher words, the economy we actually have.

            In the case of excessive atmospheric CO2, one problem is whether one accepts that it is a pollutant that is doing (albeit) indirect harm. If it is, then it should be regulated and measures taken to reduce its impacts. If it isn’t then it should not be regulated or reduced. You appear to take the position that it is not a pollutant. i take the position that it is.

            But I’m curious. If you decided that it was indeed a pollutant that should be reduced, what would your preffered method (as a young economist) be?

          • Alyssa Eggebrecht

            The only part of my explanation that I think could be attributed to a free-market perspective is the analysis of local governments impeding the market from effectively reducing environmental pollution. The rest of my explanation incorporates standard economic principles.

            I, from an economics perspective, can’t really answer your question: “If you decided that it was indeed a pollutant that should be reduced, what would your preffered method (as a young economist) be?” Well, this involves actual legislation – whether something is going to be illegal or legal. This goes beyond economic analysis – economists simply analyze scarce resources and their production, consumption, and distribution while reserving value judgments about any of the above conditions. If something like CO2 were to become illegal, because it was proved beyond doubt that it was indeed a pollutant, then all I could really analyze would be the possible cost-benefit analysis of that legislation. A somewhat similar example is an economic analysis on the costs and benefits of the “War on Drugs.”

            Also, if something like CO2 polluting became an illegal activity then most of what happens is arbitrated through the courts, and damages are considered and assessed against offenders. Therefore, the realm of law becomes more applicable; however, one could perform various “risk assessments” to see if it is “worth” trying to skirt the law. Questions like: How strong is this piece of legislation? Do “loop holes” exist? How punitive are the damages? These questions become important considerations to firms as well as consumers. Then based on the elected actions from the above considerations, a cost-benefit analysis could be performed by an industry economist.

            However, we are not at this stage, and currently economists analyze the costs and benefits to society from cap-and-trade legislation. It seems that the costs outweigh the benefits for cap-and-trade programs for a multitude of reasons. The question then economists try to answer is: Given that CO2 emissions have yet to be proved to cause significant damage to the environment, is it beneficial to society to keep incurring the costs of cap-and-trade legislation? Are there other possible solutions that could appease concerned individuals while limiting the costs of a cap-and-trade program?

          • v. person

            Are you sure you are not studying politics as opposed to economics? Because your answer sure spins around the question.

            CO2 has already been classified as a pollutant by the EPA. So we can check that one off. Science has concluded, not beyond all doubt, but at a preponderance of the evidence level, that adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere poses serious risks. Most nations signed and implemented the Kyoto treaty, a small down payment on CO2 reduction. The US signed but did not ratify the treaty, even though George Bush promised in his campaign to regulate and reduce CO2.

            Both candidates for presedent in the last election supported a cap and trade policy. The one that got elected is now moving forward. All this is to say that. whatever your personal view, the policy of your government will soon be to begin reducing our nation’s generation of CO2. You as an economist should want to see the most economical method for doing so, and you should be able to generate some ideas to help.

            As far as I can tell there are only 3 ways to do this:
            1)command and control, bascially making it illegal to discharge over a certain amount of the stuff
            2) Tax it to raise the price to a point where people and businesses do what they have to do to avoid paying (by using less)
            3) Cap and trade, which is the current proposal.

            You claim that economists have concluded that costs of dealing with CO2 outweigh the benefits. I agree some economists have said this, but the CBO analysis says the current can & trade legislation will cost very little over the next 10 years. Are you saying they are wrong? If so, what did they get wrong?

          • Alyssa Eggebrecht

            Well, I can’t help it if you do not like my response to your question, but economists simply employ a different set of standards to analyzing questions. We do not make value judgements, we engage in cost-benefit analysis. If by your own reasoning methods this seems to simply be a “spin” on answering your question, I’d have to conclude you are unwilling to see the difference between making positive and normative conclusions.

            With regard to your other assertions, they are simply that – your opinions or interpretations of some source you have yet to cite. You claim that the EPA has regarded CO2 as a pollutant. Even though this agency does have the authority to classify any number of compounds, elements, and agents (etc) into various categories of pollutants/contaminants it also must give evidence and reason as to how, when, why, along with various other conditions that these various agents become classified as a pollutant/contaminant. The EPA then has the burden of proof, and until this has been showed beyond reasonable doubt, their authority to regulate is restricted. Therefore, they can classify all they want, but proving damages and bringing regulation is a legal process. Also, keep in mind that the EPA has no oversight or real authority to regulate the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program. I think this shows how a large percentage of legislatures and their constituents interpret the EPA’s classification system.

            Again you cite a “government authority” without any direct link to a statement or source, and expect me to take your opinion/interpretation of that source as valid. The CBO has their own ways of calculating costs and savings, which is very different from cost-benefit analysis. Essentially you are comparing the work of accountants to the work of economists – you are not comparing like analyses. If you could find something from BEA, quote the exact study and reference it appropriately, I could take your comments into evaluation. As they stand though, they are simply assertions backed by whatever it is you believe you read and understood.

            Lastly, I think the best solution to CO2 emissions is innovation via the free-market and deregulation of the energy industries. Deregulation will allow more competition between firms and consumers will be offered more energy products. The reasons for this have been enumerated many times on this blog, so I encourage you to read a little closer and consider why these arguments may have something to offer.

          • David Appell

            Since corporations and markets refuse to pay for the external damage they create, and government refuses to require them, the only alternative is to artifically raise the price of carbon via fees and taxes. As long as carbon is cheap, individuals will use it and investors will have no incentive to develop other energy sources. Regardless of what any politician said during the Waxman-Markey debate, the cost of carbon and carbon-based fuels (gasoline, oil, natural gas, etc.) and their derivatives (such as electricity) *must* rise if we are going to transition to noncarbon sources. That’s just basic economics, and no legislation can annul that.

          • Alyssa Eggebrecht

            David,

            This is just my point; I am not convinced that these “horrible CO2 producing companies” are doing anything that is damaging our environment.

            Secondly, it is not clear that all these forms of “alternative energy,” really help the environment either. For example, renewable energies, such as ethanol and solar cells, use large amounts of water in their energy creating processes, and that this type of technology could deplete water supplies more quickly if their usage is increased. So you see, the plan to start taxing carbon emitting energies will be the beginning of this insane process to “save the world,” and then we’ll have to move onto taxing alternative energies as well, to “save the world,” again.

            Obviously this is why my point of trying to buy our way out of problems isn’t a logical solution to anything, especially when the perceived problem has not been definitively proven by science to be a problem in the first place.

            I think this whole policy debate goes beyond basic economics, and I can safely say this, because I have a degree in economics. Whenever one verge on making arguments that incorporate value judgments one has left the realm of traditional cost-benefit analysis. Economics isn’t the study of “winners and losers,” it’s the study of scarce resources and how they are produced, consumed, and distributed.

            Again I say, those individuals who abhor the companies that profit of off societies’ indiscretions are also more than willing to profit off of the same individuals and corporations to promote their own lifestyles and standards of living. If you want to live a “green lifestyle” then be by guest and go about your business quietly, but don’t expect people like me who aren’t convinced of your lifestyle choices to finance it for you via taxes. Go be an adult, and make it happen for yourself, because really no one is stopping you until the next round of taxes begin to encroach on your “green lifestyle.”

          • David Appell

            Alyssa, I never used the phrase “horrible CO2 producing companies,” so please don’t quote me to that effect.

            > I am not convinced that these “horrible CO2 producing companies” are doing
            > anything that is damaging our environment.

            Today’s science disagrees with you. You can disagree, but you’re putting your head in the sand.

            > If you want to live a “green lifestyle” then be by guest and go about
            > your business quietly, but don’t expect people like me who aren’t convinced
            > of your lifestyle choices to finance it for you via taxes. Go be an adult, and
            > make it happen for yourself, because really no one is stopping you until
            > the next round of taxes begin to encroach on your “green lifestyle.”

            That philosophy is insufficient, because individuals and companies can and do have negative effects on the environment. Your actions affect me. My actions affect you. All of them affect future generations. Being an “adult” requires recognizing that and realizing that there must be limits to raw greed.

          • Alyssa Eggebrecht

            David,

            Yeah, um I guess you cannot recognize when someone quotes their own dialog for dramatic effect. If I had been quoting you, I would have set off your words with beginning and ending commas along with quotation marks.

            For example, David likes to think that he is an accomplished scholar in every field of academia, because he thinks his physics degree entitles him to superior intellect and accomplishment. However, he confuses aspects of economics, and proffers these confused ideas as unequivocal proof for his arguments. He used the following incorrect and convoluted idea, “Regardless of what any politician said during the Waxman-Markey debate, the cost of carbon and carbon-based fuels (gasoline, oil, natural gas, etc.) and their derivatives (such as electricity) must rise if we are going to transition to noncarbon sources. That’s just basic economics, and no legislation can annul that.”

            My response was, “I think this whole policy debate goes beyond basic economics, and I can safely say this, because I have a degree in economics. Whenever one verge on making arguments that incorporate value judgments one has left the realm of traditional cost-benefit analysis. Economics isn’t the study of “winners and losers,” it’s the study of scarce resources and how they are produced, consumed, and distributed.”

            Secondly, I do not agree with your developmental analysis of what an adult is: “Your actions affect me. My actions affect you. All of them affect future generations. Being an “adult” requires recognizing that and realizing that there must be limits to raw greed.” Being an adult does involve the ability to discriminate differences in behavior. However, it does not require one to absolutely value one type of conduct over another, or expect others to adhere to your value judgments of behavior. One knows when one has achieved adult behavior when that person can, “strike a balance between getting what they want and giving what is needed. When they can defer to someone else without feeling powerless and hold their ground without fearing abandonment” (Judith Sills, PhD).

  • ClackCoRepub

    The climate scientists have a huge incentive to propagate the doomsday theory (it’s how they get paid). What happens to all their gov’t sponsored jobs if the theory is discredited?

    I wonder how long they can keep it going.

    For centuries alchemists conned powerful men into supporting their search for a philosopher’s stone with the promise that it would allow them to turn lead into gold.

    • David Appell

      > The climate scientists have a huge incentive to propagate the doomsday
      > theory (it’s how they get paid). What happens to all their gov’t sponsored jobs if
      > the theory is discredited?

      First, scientists are pretty smart people and if they were motivated by money they would have become quants on Wall Street and gotten rich.

      Second, if scientists were only interested in getting more grants, then they’d be emphasizing what they *don’t* know instead of what they *do* know. Instead, they have been saying over the last few decades how much more confident they are of their conclusions and putting them in stronger and stronger terms.

      Thirdly, scientists have bosses and their bosses have bosses and if they don’t accomplish science and move the field forward, they don’t get their grants renewed. There is enormous competition for these grants.

      Finally, if you’re so cynical as to think that science runs primarily on money, I don’t see how you could ever take another prescription pill ever again. And I wonder if *you* in your job slide along accomplishing nothing while saying that you need more money to be certain. I suspect you do.

  • SRoss

    First, thank you Representative Wingard for showing how few people are fooled by this mockery we call climate change.

    For those that feel climate change is a front page issue, take a look at the 2008 Presidential Election where the issue was mentioned maybe once a few speeches. The honest to God truth is that the general public may blame their problems on climate change but they care more about their pocket book than what Al Gore predicts to happen 50 years from now.

    Cap and trade legislation was proposed this same time last year and nothing has changed except the fact that people are even more concerned about the economy. It didn’t pass then and it is not likely to pass now.

  • Anon

    Matt Wingard apparently thinks that being “brave” means beating his own son with a screwdriver and locking him in a closet.

    I suppose that the “cowards” he references are those who DON’T beat their children.

    • Steve Plunk

      I guess when you’ve got nothing of substance to add to the argument you just stoop low and attack personally. Stay classy Anon.

  • Joe

    Well, it is 100 out so there must be global warming.

  • David Appell

    >>This fact is about as established as science gets.

    > No its not.

    Yes, it is. Every scientist in the world, even the so-called skeptics, recognize that CO2 is a warming gas. Their question/debate is about the climate sensitivity.

    > If these people had proven this, then we would sure see a lot of temperature graphs showing
    > temperature following CO2. We don’t.

    Totally untrue. There are plenty of examples in the paleoclimate literature where carbon dioxide or methane releases led to temperature rises. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum is just one of them. As well as the entire planet of Venus.

    Temperature can both lead CO2 increases and follow CO2 increases. The current period is special in that man is an new external perturbation on the system, viz. artifically transferring fossilized CO2 from the earth to the atmosphere.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Every scientist in the world, even the so-called skeptics, recognize that CO2 is a warming gas. Their question/debate is about the climate sensitivity.

      Sure, Ill go along with that. But that’s pretty much like saying Ill let my uncle baby sit the kids, I can’t be sure if has a traffic ticket or is a convicted murderer, but I know he has seen a courtroom.

      In the end though, doesn’t it now seem a little silly to be coming up with predictions as to how warm the temps will be 100 years out, when, as you admit, there isn’t even any settled amount CO2 affects things?

      >Totally untrue. There are plenty of examples in the paleoclimate literature where carbon dioxide or methane releases led to temperature rises.

      Your a scientist?

      This is a really poor conclusion logically.

      I was speaking about CO2 leading to global warming. If it had, then we would see increases in CO2 followed by warming on a consistent basis.

      Your giving a few examples of it happening does not in the least prove CO2 leading to global warming has been proven. I have no idea how in the world you think it does and frankly am astonished someone who claims the scientific background you do would make such a statement.

      >The current period is special in that man is an new external perturbation on the system, viz. artifically transferring fossilized CO2 from the earth to the atmosphere.

      Ahh, ok, we are in a special period because its man made CO2.

      So CO2 can sometimes precede global warming.

      CO2 can follow global warming. ( as you said “Temperature can both lead CO2 increases and follow CO2 increases.” )

      But nevertheless, you maintain CO2 causes global warming?

      And this time is special, we know this time CO2 is preceding warming because its special man made CO2?

      I mean, you are asking me to buy that argument?

      Seriously?

      • v. person

        “And this time is special, we know this time CO2 is preceding warming because its special man made CO2?

        I mean, you are asking me to buy that argument?

        Seriously? ”

        We know that the evidence points to this conclusion, yes. Human generated increases in greenhouse gasses has caused warming and will continue to do so if we keep on adding more. Whether you choose to ignore the evidence or not is entirely up to you.

        By the way Rupert, you should be happy to know that your campaign worked. I and no one else on earth can no longer post on Catalyst as valley person. Aren’t you proud?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >By the way Rupert, you should be happy to know that your campaign worked. I and no one else on earth can no longer post on Catalyst as valley person. Aren’t you proud?

          Why would I be proud? I had nothing to do with you being banned nor did I lead any campaign for such a thing nor can you point to a post I made campaigning to have you banned. Its entirely in your head, yet you still insist on accusing me of this and cant point to a single thing I have said in that regard.

          Once again, to the best of my recollection the only time I have said I felt you should be banned was when you were making racist jokes on the blog during the 2008 campaign. I frankly felt that sort of talk was ugly and didn’t have a place here.

          You got yourself banned. I had nothing to do with it. Obviously because you can never admit you are wrong you will not learn from it, and thus the need to blame me. That’s delusional. I suggest you move on to another topic and try to get a little composure and maturity in the process. You are doing yourself no favours with this continued raving about some campaign you feel I lead. You are your own worst enemy, not me.

      • David Appell

        > In the end though, doesn’t it now seem a little silly to be coming
        > up with predictions as to how warm the temps will be 100 years out, when,
        > as you admit, there isn’t even any settled amount CO2 affects things?

        It *is* settled that CO2 is a significant warming gas.

        However, *all* scientific conclusions have uncertainties, both as a result of data uncertainties and theoretical assumptions made. The climate situation is complicated by the fact that its underlying equations are nonlinear, which introduces a further inherent uncertainty in the results (“chaos”). Future socioeconomic factors (population, energy use, land use, etc.) are not exactly predictable, introducing more uncertainty. And, of course, computational power introduces more uncertainty.

        These are why the IPCC projections give a range for warming (2.0 – 4.5 C by 2100), not a single number.

        Some published work in the last couple of years has suggested that much further reduction of uncertainty in climate model results may not be possible, given these issues. That hardly means we shouldn’t take action. *All* models, with different assumptions, show warming — because it’s a basic result of the underlying physics.

        And what do we observe? Warming. Melting. Decreases in ocean pH. Rises in sea level. All as expected from basic principles.

        2.0 C is already a lot of warming. 4.5 C is a very large amount (greater than an Ice Age). And it could be more — uncertainty cuts both ways. It could be less. Are you willing to gamble with your children and grandchildren’s future?

        Sure, reducing the scientific uncertainties would be ideal. It’s not completely possible. And unlike most other scientific results, we can’t wait for decades until the calculations are perfect (which they can never be anyhow) or all uncertainty is reduced (which it can never be anyhow). Society always has to act in the fact of imperfect conclusions, and that is especially true of this problem.

        Because you don’t know the exact year your house will burn down — or even the exact decade — does that mean you don’t buy fire insurance?

  • John Lloyd Scharf

    Here’s the scorecard a full six weeks into hurricane season 2009:

    Tropical depressions zero
    Tropical storms zero
    Hurricanes zero
    Major hurricanes zero

    More global warming – PLEASE!

    • David Appell

      Not true. To date, there have been two hurricanes in the Pacific (a C1 and a C2), and four named storms.

  • Bob Clark

    Sacrificing a bunch to try and change the earth’s climate through CO^2 cutbacks is pure folly. 1)India and China have said they will not change their emission policies, and sacrifice their own economic propserity. In fact, India’s chief enviromental czar just told Hiliary to take a hike regarding her position on climate change. These and other countries will not stop building coal plants, many of which have low tech emission capture systems. Their increased emissions will wipe out any heroic sacrifices the U.S and other climate-change-delusioned-countries undertake. 2) The so-called scientific consensus is unwraveling. The Journal Nature just added an article raising the flag about the very real weaknesses of climate models. 3) Think about how ludcrious it is to think man can do much to offset natural causes of warming like solar flares, ocean currents, and volcanic activity.

  • Anonymous

    David.

    You’re the most persistne AGW liar around. There’s no sense going over your crap piece by piece again.
    You don’t understand physics or AGW or the IPCC science.

    You’ve made one assinine claim after another while lying over and over again.

    The chain of AGW deceit you participate in is becoming evident by more and more people every day along with the many scientific falsehoods connected to AGW being exposed.

    Here’s an example of the AGW science you promote.
    http://icecap.us/

    Jul 23, 2009
    Pacific Northwest Snow Pack – the True Story
    By George Taylor
    Washington Governor Gregoire recently sent a letter to the Washington House delegation in which she stated that the snow pack has declined 20% over the past 30 years: “Last month, a study released by the University of Washington shows we’ve already lost 20% of our snow pack over the last 30 years.”
    Actual snow pack numbers show a 22% INCREASE in snow pack over the past 33 years across the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains:

    Larger image here. See post here.
    ICECAP NOTE: In this story on Sustainable Oregon, George shows how choosing start and end dates makes all the difference in trend analysis. This is true because precipitation trends in the northwest are linked to the PDO cycle of 60 or so years. In the cold phase, La Ninas and heavy snowpacks are common (like the last two years) and in the warm phase, El Ninos and drier winters (as was the case from the 1970s to late 1990s). By cherry picking his start data as 1950 at the very snowy start of the cold PDO pahse from 1947 to 1977 and ending in 1997 at the end of the drier warm PDO phase from 1979 to 1998, Mote was able to extract a false signal which he attributed to man made global warming.
    Arguing this point made George Taylor, state climatologist for decades in Oregon a target (he took early retirement) and cost the assistant state climatologist in Washington, Mark Albright, his job. Phil Mote, the alarmist professor and author of a discredited work on the western snowpack for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society doesn’t accept criticism lightly. He ironically was appointed to the state climatologist position George Taylor held in Oregion. It was Ph il who fired Mark for challenging his findings. That is the way it is in the university climate world today, real data doesn’t matter so don’t bother to look and if you need to pick and choose carefully. Anyone who disagrees publically and risks funding need look elsewhere for employment.
    George shows the 1950 to 1997 trend and the longer term trend analysis for several stations with good records showing no discernible long term trends.
    The story doesn’t end there as this post by Jeff ID called SNOWMEN tells, another climate schiester, Eric Steig who made the headline last year when he worked with Michael Mann, the king of data fraud to eliminate the antarctic cooling of the last several decades. Eric chimed in against Taylor and Albright defending Mote and making false or at least uninformed claims about trends. It is clear from Steig’s Real Climate post never even looked at the whole data trends. Jeff correctly notes “These plots are of specific stations, however they demonstrate that at least for the above locations the 1950-1997 trend is a cherry pick, nothing more.”
    Unfortunately this bad analysis has gotten people promoted and been used by state governments to make unwise decisions like supporting the flawed and costly and totally unnecessary WCI (Western Climate Initiative), which Paul Che sser writes about in this American Spectator story here. Climate frauds like Mann, Mote and Steig have a lot to answer for, if the governments measures inflict major pain on the citizens and the globe continues to cool in its natural rythym.

  • Chuck Wiese

    David Appell: You keep stating to every blogging audience that you rant on, including this one, that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas and it is “simple physics” that adding more Co2 means waming temperatures. For someone who claims a Ph.D. in physics, you continue to blunder, never learning from your mistakes, and continue to spread assertions that are totally off base and full of BS. Radiation physics involving the earth atmosphere system is far mor complex than such a stupid and ignorant assertion as this.

    Co2 IS NOT A MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS. You are misrepresenting science with this bogus claim. It is NOT causing climate change. There is no evidence of this and you cannot tie any warming tempertaure record of the earth scientifically to this gas without stepping far outsdide the realm of scientific proofs. A saturated 15 micron absorber of IR energy from the earth such as Co2 behaves much differently than these idiotic claims of yours that simple physics are involved. Does this also mean you are still asserting like you did earlier that warming a parcel of air ( regardless of the cause ) means it will attain saturation with respect to use of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, like climate models incorrectly do, and you still agree this is so? Do you still believe that stratospheric cooling is the “fingerprint” of AGW even though satellite measurements indicate a 6% reduction in UV radiation output from the sun which ozone absorbs strongly in the stratosphere and warms it? Are you going to deny that all climate models projected a large tropical tropospheric “hot spot” to emerge from rising Co2 concentration that never materialized and infact, the mid tropical troposphere has cooled?

    You can’t ignore these facts and remain objective. But you continue to do so. You have offered no explanation for your behavior and assertions that would point to a reasonable conclusion that you are thinking rationally about this issue and your continue to demonstrate a lack of mastery of basic principles of atmospheric science.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      Chuck Weise, your “15 micron saturation” argument is old science that was corrected decades ago as climate scientists treated the composition of the atmosphere more realistically. There’s a long explanation of exactly this point by Ray Pierrehumbert in RealClimate, June 26, 2007.

  • Chuck Wiese

    By the way….KUDOS to Matt Wingard for writing this article as a politician and questioning the greedy motives of this Governor and special interest groups that stand ready to prosper at the expense of taxpayers and citizens who will get nothing from climate legislation as the whole idea is based upon faulty, fraudulent principles and evidence which will solve nothing and cost business and individuals not part of the scam alot of their hard earned money.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

  • Anonymous

    Visit

    http://www.icecap.us

    and

    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

    and grasp the unfolding and collapse of the corrupted science David Appell distributes.

    There is not a single intact component of the IPCC case for AGW.

    Appell is a cronic liar repeating the lies from Gore, Hansen, Schmidt et al.

    Just as our own Bill Bradbury and Jane Lubchencho has done repeatedly.

    Lubchencho, now head of NOAA that Appell worships is an egregious offender of the truth.
    She propogated a lie that AGW caused ocean dead zones off the coast of Oregon and now that lie has been circulated around the globe.
    The chain of deceit has reported the falsehood and Bill Bradbury now includes the false link in his presentations to our children. He is telling our children that global warming is causing ocean dead zones. A so fabricated link that Lubcnenco’s own research cuationed that they could establish NO link.
    This is what Appell peddles.

    The example of this level of lying are MANY.

    Whether it’s Appell’s false claims of AGW causing Katrinna, or the ocean dead zone link fabrication, or the 22% increase in NW snowpacks being cast as 33% decline or the thriving polar bear populations presented as endangered from AGW the science Appell advocates as reliable and the best avaialble could not be more corrupted.
    With each and every post from Appell he travels futher away from integrity and the truth.

    Every single post with his name attached deserves to be recognized as the disgraceful misrepresentations they are.

  • Anonymous

    Lubchenco as head of NOAA is now spreading absurd claims that climate models are “robust enough to predict wind patterns 100 years from now.”

    This is complete and thorough fraud.
    Yet David Appell assist and defends this abuse of science.

    It’s important to keep in mind these blatant falshoods by public officials are not exceptions, isolated or rare. They are many covering most if not all of the many components driving the AGW movement.
    In stark contrast the dishonest AGW community Appell participates in does NOT provide any justification for their eggregious claims. They avoid debate, fail to repsond, withhold data, neglect to update their work and manipulate the media along the way.

    This is the science and goverment Appell is promoting.
    He, like Hansen himself who’s beeen arrested for protesting, is one step away from being the ledge sitting, bucket crapping, anarchists, eco terrorist Tre Arrow.

    At some point these maniacle perveyors of fraudulent science and corrupted governence must be publicly condemned for their offenses.

  • Ron Glynn

    I am still clapping for Mr. Wingard

  • wookie

    FYI – this just in today:

    “Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.

    The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    One particularly striking set of images – selected from the 1,000 photographs released – includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.”

    Of course Obama fabricated these satellite photos, and then arm-twisted the US military into releasing the fraudulent photos to the media, even though the military knew that they were fraudulent. Obama acted when James Hansen moved the joystick on his computer that sends a signal via the small chip behind the President’s ear to get Obama to do Hansen’s bidding, with Al Gore and Jane Lubchenco standing next to him in his office at GISS cheering him on, and thousands of scientists worldwide waiting for the President to act so that they can take their AGW grants and purchase recently devalued mansions in Las Vegas (that lost their value because of Obama’s economic programs) with the proceeds. Right?

  • wookie

    BTW,

    Rep. Wingard was convicted of beating his child with a screwdriver. Fact.

    Does pointing this out represent character assassination? Or does it simply call into question his character and fitness for serving in elective office?

    Many of his constituents (including yours truly) were amazed at the ability of Rep. Wingard and his allies to turn this issue around and make it seem as if his opponents were unfairly accusing him of something he hadn’t done that had no relevance to his character. Can anyone on this blog assert with a straight face that if a Democrat was running for elective office and had been convicted of child abuse that they would regard the fact as irrelevant or somehow a diversion from the issues? Huh?

    • OR_libertarian

      I actually know Matt Wingard, and even though we do not see eye-to-eye on every issue, I know that his character is not one of a child abuser. I also have friends who hold very liberal ideas, and I am able to respect these people and maintain great friendships with them. I would argue that my friends feel the same about me even though my political and economic philosophies differ from there own.

      My Father used to reprimand me by spanking me with a leather belt, and then putting me in my room for a time-out. Now, he didn’t lock the door, because I knew better then to come out before my time-out was finished. Granted, reading this statement from me sounds like I am probably an abused child, and my Father should have had charges pressed against him; however, you have no particulars of the situation. The fact is, my physical punishment was nothing more than a stinging sensation, and my time-out was mostly spent crying, because I felt bad for having to be reprimanded. Living on a farm, and being told more than once to not play around heavy machinery and doing it anyways, got me this type of punishment. I believe my Father cared more about my safety and life, and needed to make a point very clear – that playing around heavy machinery and getting into an accident will hurt a lot more than a mere spanking.

      Why don’t you either save your salacious comments for those individuals who rightly deserve them, or at least know what you are talking about before you make erroneous judgments.

  • wookie

    Erroneous judgment?

    Since when is a criminal conviction an erroneous judgment? And how is stating this “salacious”? He didn’t run off to Argentina to visit his mistress, or have an affair with a staffer. He beat his son with a screwdriver. If that should be acceptable behavior, then what, exactly, is outside the realm of acceptable behavior? Again, I would not vote for a Democratic candidate who exhibited this kind of behavior, and I generally vote for candidates from that side of the fence. In my opinion, anyone who uses a screwdriver for the purposes of punishing their kids has a few screws loose (sorry about the pun).

  • Chuck Wiese

    Wookie: You are so rich, like all of your other AGW pals who are incessant liars about the earths climate. The arctic IS NOT MELTING BEYOND ANY OF THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE PAST you idiot. Look at the actual satellite records as proof. The Northwest passage has been open in the summer several times in the past century, and even though there was more summer melt in the northern hemisphere since 1979 THAT IS NOW REVERSING, too, and the fall freeze is occuring sooner. Oceanographers explain the phenomena well by the record El Ninio’s of the last 30 yeras that spread Kelvin waves northward to the arctic with a ten year lag behind the eastward propagation. The southern hemisphere NEVER HAD ANY ACCELERATION IN MELTING. THE ICE CAP HAS GROWN NOT SHRUNK DURING THE SAME TIME, AGAIN MEASURED BY SATELLITE. If CO2 was causing global warming by the amplification of back IR radiation, how do you explain such a discrepancy? You can’t because Co2 does not cause climate change by increasing its concentration.
    The claims about melting polar ice and harm to polar bears is frivolous lying, intended to arouse the emotions of the under educated populous to lash out and demand action. This is instigated by environmental special interest groups who are scientifically illiterate.

    Your personal attacks on Wingard are laughabe and typical of a liberal kooks who are actually the kings of political correctness and hypocrisy. It has been my experience in attempting to educate the public about the falshoods of AGW, that the first thing warmers do is look for ways to attack the anti AGW messenger rather than his/her science because warmers can’t win those arguments. The “science” behind AGW is deepoly flawed and some of it outrightly wrong. Fred Singer is one of the most accomplished scientists ( Ph.D. in physics from Princeton ) who had a thirty year long career at NOAA in developing their satellite observing program and when he took positions against AGW claims, warmers came out of the wood work and falsely accused him of unscrupulous associations with the tabacco industry to try and discredit his oipinions. That, of course, had nothing to do with his position on the science, but is thrown out to distort his record of accomplishments and divert attention away from his credible message. I have NEVER seen an AGW proponent offer any correct, convincing argument or ANY proof that this hypothesis is real and happening. It has all been unproven, statistically incorrect conjecture that is lied about and claimed to be fact.

    So here you are, talking about Wingard and using a diversion tactic to change the subject when your ship is sinking. Nice try, but it isn’t working. Wingard was NOT convicted of “beating his child with a screwdriver” as you state. You are lying about this, too. He pleaded out to lesser charges that have since been expunged from his record, and the initial claim was filed by his ex wife, who he was estranged from and was divorcing at the time. You ask ANY police officer about what often happens in the throws of heated emotions during divorce, and this sort of personal ugliness frequently rears its head as couples fight for assets and power. Alot of it is grossly exaggerated or lied about to “sick authorities” on the “abuser” so that the spouse can get an upper hand in the divorce. Convenient facts you ignored and that are a matter of public record that did not dissuede voters from electing him. Sam Adams, on the othe hand is a cronic liar, admits that he is, and lies about AGW just as much as he does his personal life to get elected. He knowingly deceived the public, and he is an unabashed liberal who has ignored every bit of evidence put before his long pinocchio nose about the earths true climate record and has signed on to a ridiculous Portland “Climate Action Plan” that was contrived by scientifically illiterate loons who actually believe mans activities are significant enough to alter the global climate system. Wake up and get yourself some education about the subject of climate, stick to the subject and quit using personal diversion tactics to ignore what can be established as fact. These plans and legislative actions are nothing more than huge tax hikes and regulating authorities disguised as “saving the planet” to the eneducated public to make them feel good about getting a foot long financial enema that is unnecessary and will severely damage an already bad economy.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      Fred Singer took money to opine against the health effects of second-hand smoke. In an affidavit He has also taken money from oil companies to do climate change research.

      He is also no longer listed as a climate “expert” on CEI’s web site.

      Most importantly, though, his work is not longer published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Even good scientists can be wrong.

    • David Appell

      > Alot of it is grossly exaggerated or lied about

      Wingard admitted to the Oregonian (1/18/08) that he hit his little kid hard enough to leave a bump on his head.

  • Anonymous

    Wookie,

    Your own lack of integrity and political smearing is on full display here not Windgard’s.

    Your effort is to smear Wingard instead of addressing AGW.

    And it’s clear you know the real story from the campaign season which now you choose to embellish to smear Matt.

    There was no beating, period. It was a single tap and the head of a misbehaviing child that grew into an issue from a custody battle and the small temporary mark it created.
    Wingard plead guilty to a minor charge to get it behind him and have it expunged from his record.

    Now back to global warming. How is it that you dishonest fools parade right by the blatant falsehoods generated by the alarmists>

    The fabrictations are many as exampled up thread.

    Yet your allegaince to the fraud is unwavering and without any sketisism or curiosity at all.

    Your naive take on those photos is assinine. There’s been no cover up of ice loss with plenty of photos and ice tracking all the while.
    Your typical mischarcterization of sketisism as charges of silly and bizzarre consipracy you described is as dumb as it gets and deliberately avoids addressing the very real fbrications Lubchencho and many others have perpetrated.

    Why are you not concerned about fabricated snow pack losses or Lubchencho’s phony AGW link to ocean dead zones? Or her claim of able to predict wind patterns 100 years from now?
    Or the phony polar bear connection? None are true. Accoring to their own science.

    The answer? You’re a dishonest fool who’s driven by a Tre Arrow -like fanatasism.

    FYI the Northwest passage has been ice free many times with ships using it and news reports throughout the last century and more.
    Yet you’re agast at the new photos? Your ignorance leaves you vulnerable.
    It’s you who is pitched into ridiculous conspiracy nonsense. There was no Bush suppression of Actric ice loss. With multiple monitorings of sea ice the full extent of ice fluctuation has been known, reported and debated for decades.
    How much more of a fool can you be?

  • David Appell

    > The southern hemisphere NEVER HAD ANY ACCELERATION IN MELTING.
    > THE ICE CAP HAS GROWN NOT SHRUNK DURING THE SAME TIME, AGAIN MEASURED
    > BY SATELLITE. If CO2 was causing global warming by the amplification of back IR
    > radiation, how do you explain such a discrepancy?

    Because Antarctica sits mostly on rock and not, like the Arctic, on ocean. Hence it ice melts little from below, and only is reduced as it slides into the ocean along the coast. Because water vapor content is increasing, snowfall is increasing.

  • John in Oregon

    David Appell. I am going to challenge your first set of statements in this thread. That recent years and recent days have been the warmest years and days EVER (GISS).

    Dontcha think you ought to reconsider that position? Even the folks over at RealClimate admit that the last decade or so is cooling.

    David you commented that > *Because Antarctica sits mostly on rock and not, like the Arctic, on ocean.*

    My comment here is to bring up one of those stray facts that come from out of left field. The unexpected that often results in a ahhh haaa moment. The brilliant leap to new thinking.

    This item out of left field concerns a map in the Library of Congress in Washington DC. The map has been authenticated as drawn by well-known French cartographer, Oronteus Finaeus, in 1531. Finaeus was a well-known scholar and was an expert in cartography, astronomy, mathematics and military weaponry. The map is based on numerous source maps, some of them going back to the time of Alexander the Great in 335 BC.

    “One section of the map pictures the globe from the perspective of the South Pole. Antarctica is clearly shown on this map and is pictured as being largely ice-free with flowing rivers and a clean coastline. Some of the mountain ranges pictured on the map have only been recently discovered.”

    The map shows no detail for interior areas Antarctica which are areas of known long term glacierization.

    “There are numerous sensational features of the map-one of them being the reality that it clearly pictures Antarctica long before it was “discovered” in 1820. Also significant is the fact that Antarctica is depicted as largely free of ice, at least in the coastal areas. This means that some of the source-maps were drawn before the mile-thick ice-cap covered the continent. This is not surprising because it is well-known that when the Vikings settled Greenland in 980 AD, it too was much warmer than today. The Vikings in Greenland numbered about 5,000 by 1200AD, but as the earth cooled, the settlers died off or moved away.”

    “The Finaeus depiction of Antarctica is extraordinarily accurate-so much so that modern cartographers are mystified as to how it could have been drawn with such amazing accuracy. The mapmaking ability of earlier people (perhaps the Phoenicians), including their abilities in mathematics and geometry, must have been far superior to what has recently been imagined.”

    “The map demonstrates that Antarctica had been extensively explored and mapped long before it was known to the Western world. Since Antarctica was much warmer when some of the source-maps were drawn than it is today, the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change must be given up.”

    “How can the accuracy of this map be explained? One of the earliest authorities on mapmaking was Claudius Ptolemaeus (referred to in the West as “Ptolemy”) who lived from about AD 85-168. Ptolemy was a cartographer, mathematician, astronomer and geographer. He lived in Alexandria under the Roman Empire.”

    Allen Quist, the author at EDN news draws the conclusion the map disproves CO2 warming. I find that a stretch based on only the map alone.

    However the map clearly raises questions about the historic climate of coastal Antarctica or how ancient peoples gained knowledge of features covered by ice. I find the map interesting on that basis even without the CO2 connection.

  • Anonymous

    David,

    Good to see you raise water vapor. Even though you’re trying to once again mislead and misrepresent. And your ignorance is astounding.

    Your asinine echoing of AGW BS that there is more snow fall from global warming shows your shallow and juvenile grasp of this issue.

    Furthermore, and let’s be clear for the folks, there is no science connecting ANY increased water vapor to human CO2 emissions.
    Just like NOAA’s Jane Lubchencho’s fabricated link between AGW and ocean dead zones, and her claim of predicting wind patterns 100 from now or your own fabricated link between AGW and Hurricane Katrina the AGW water vapor increase is a purposeful presumption.

    A deliberate and convenient presumption by the IPCC to elevate projections of global warming to alarming levels.
    Without the IPCC presumption of human caused water vapor increases there is no global warming or the disgraceful movement you have fallen into.
    Of course you are aware of the IPCC’s need to include water vapor in the climate modeling projections. You just sidestep and distort the basis and importance of that central aspect because of your lack of integrity.

    David, you have demonstrated a persistent attempt to mislead readers every where you post.

    No surprise since Hansen, Gore, et al, have done the same thing with the bulk of the media serving their movement well.

  • David Appell

    > That recent years and recent days have been the warmest years and days EVER (GISS).

    Actually that idea comes from UAH data and is not a strict scientific conclusion (hence I wrote “…may have been…”)

    > Even the folks over at RealClimate admit that the last decade or so is cooling.

    Where exactly do they say that? This is by far the warmest decade on record, by all four datasets.

    Regarding the ice sheets of Antarctica, I believe the findings of modern day geology and climate science far more than a 500 yr old map of questionable origin.

  • Chuck Wiese

    David Appell said: “Because Antarctica sits mostly on rock and not, like the Arctic, on ocean. Hence it ice melts little from below, and only is reduced as it slides into the ocean along the coast. Because water vapor content is increasing, snowfall is increasing.”
    #24 David Appell on 2009-07-26 10:55

    David: The arctic ice melt from underneath the ocean has nothing to do with radiative forcing from Co2. Even if you use the MODTRAN calculation of ~1.7 Wm-2 to where we are now, how long would it take to change the ocean temperature 1 degC if the everage ocean depth is 5000ft? An off the cuff calculation using a volume of ocean depth of 5000ft on a square meter gives an answer of 118.94 years! That’s about .24 degC of warming up to now if you assumed the radiation has operated constantly since the year 1980. And that is assuming the radiation could be a measured forcing, not an absorption of upward flux based upon a radiance of constant atmospheric temperature which it is not. In reality, robotic temperature assessments from NOAA show the oceans temperatures have remained constant through the thermocline. So what caused the melting? The answer is the oceanic circulation related to the thirty year PDO shift which ended several years ago. The arctic ice is regrowing faster off of summer melts which is a total contradiction to CO2 radiative warming concepts.

    Your statement that Antarctic glaciers did not melt because of the continent sitting on a land mass is another exapmle of your failure to understand heat and radiation. The latent heat of sublimation of ice is 680 cal/g and the latent heat of fusion of ice is 80cal/g. All things being equal, if CO2 radiation was the cause of the arctic ice melt, Antarctica should have seen a decline as well in the vicinity of 10% or more of what happened in the arctic, but it did not. Instead the glaciers grew. Another contradiction to global CO2 radiational forcing causing climate change. The water vapor increase in the LOWER troposphere has been a response to the warm phase PDO and EL Ninio activity of the prior thirty years.

    These suggestions of yours are idiotic and poorly thought out contentions that are nothing more than propaganda aimed at accomplishing public alarmism to support the continued employment of less than honest “climate scientists” taking billions per year in government grants paid for by hood winked John Q. Public.

    Chuck F. Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      > The arctic ice melt from underneath the ocean has nothing to do with radiative forcing from Co2.

      Of course. But ocean water retains heat much better than interior rock, so ice that floats on water (as in the Arctic) is exposed to more heat than ice that sits on rock (as in the Antarctic).

    • David Appell

      Chuck Wiese, I see that you’re still unable to disagree with anyone without labeling them an idiot, liar, moron, or fraud. You should really rethink that strategy — it does not reflect well on your position.

  • Insider

    It takes a lot of chutzpah for a CONVICTED CHILD ABUSER like Matt Wingard to call anyone a “coward”. Sounds like typical abuser behavior.

    • David Appell

      Wow, I didn’t realize that Matt Wingard was convicted of smacking his son around. A 7-year old. That does put a different light on things, does it?

  • Chuck Wiese

    David: In regards to your comments about Fred Singer not being listed on CEI’s website as a climate scientist, it comes as no surprise. This is what warmers do to protect their government grants. They use their positions to force out any opposition. For you to suggest his work being no longer published in peer reviwed science journals means he is not credible is another laughing stock.

    Peer reviewed “climate science” approved for publication is like the fox guarding the hen coup. I call your attention to a “peer reviewed” paper that was published in the Journal of Geophysics by Robert Alllen and Steve Sherwood from Yale University entitled: “Warming Maximumin Of The Upper Tropical Troposphere Deduced By Thermal Winds”. Any meteorologist would know that just by the title alone, the paper should be bound up and put on a toilet paper dispenser. The paper is a scientific fraud that was APPROVED by these peer reviewers that you so admire. It concludes with the absurdity that the thermal wind equations have appropriate use in a barotropic environment and then incorrectly uses them to conclude that we can ignore REAL TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS of the tropical troposphere in favor of a incorrectly concocted calculating scheme that uses these equations to convert non thermally induced wind shears to equivalent thermal energy. The entire paper is a scientific disgrace, abusing these equations to get a result. It still gets published because it provided another theoretical excuse to deny what we are observing….which is global cooling. Don’t defend these academic, fraudulent jerks to me. They are a disgrace to the name of science and peer approved publishing doesn’t mean crap in the cliamte arena any longer.

    Chuck F. Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      > In regards to your comments about Fred Singer not being listed on CEI’s website
      > as a climate scientist, it comes as no surprise. This is what warmers do to
      > protect their government grants.

      Excuse me? The CEI are not “warmers” — in fact, they are the exact opposite. Their opposition to AGW is well-known. Moreover, they are funded by corporations and corporate-backed foundations, not government grants.

      That an organization skeptical of AGW would remove a noted skeptic like Singer from their list of climate experts suggests even they no longer give him any credibility.

    • David Appell

      > They are a disgrace to the name of science and peer approved publishing
      > doesn’t mean crap in the cliamte arena any longer.

      I assume then that you also discount the recent work of de Freitas, McLean and Carter published in JGR and touted by skeptical Web sites everywhere. Or that of Soon and Baliunas on the Medievel Warm Period, published in Energy & Environment. Or the work of McIntyre and McKitrick that was published in GRL (2005) — you remember, that’s the paper on the basis of which you label Mann’s work “fraudulent.”

      So which is it? If all peer-reviewed papers are “crap,” then why do you buy M&M’s conclusion?

  • Chuck Wiese

    Insider: This thread is about Wingards opinion on man made climate change, AGW, not his past problems that you are lying about and exaggerating. Take your comments elsewhere if you can’t discuss the content of the article he wrote. No one is interested in the diatribe from posts that have no relevance to the article.

    Chuck Wiese

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “Excuse me? The CEI are not “warmers” — in fact, they are the exact opposite. Their opposition to AGW is well-known. Moreover, they are funded by corporations and corporate-backed foundations, not government grants.

    That an organization skeptical of AGW would remove a noted skeptic like Singer from their list of climate experts suggests even they no longer give him any credibility.”
    #30.1 David Appell on 2009-07-26 17:11 (Reply)

    David: Baloney! Even if the CEI is skeptical of AGW they would not remove Singer because they claim he has no credibility. Show me his resignation or a statement from them. There are none. If he is off the list, it is by mutual agreement that I would bet is keyed to his aging and reluctance to spread himself too thin.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      That’s what I’ve read, but frankly the issue, or Singer, is not important enough for me to waste time tracking down. I do know that Singer has no credibility in the real scientific community. I also know, having heard his comments and questions at a talk, that he is one of the most arrogant and disagreeable scientists I’ve ever heard.

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “I assume then that you also discount the recent work of de Freitas, McLean and Carter published in JGR and touted by skeptical Web sites everywhere. Or that of Soon and Baliunas on the Medievel Warm Period, published in Energy & Environment. Or the work of McIntyre and McKitrick that was published in GRL (2005) — you remember, that’s the paper on the basis of which you label Mann’s work “fraudulent.”

    So which is it? If all peer-reviewed papers are “crap,” then why do you buy M&M’s conclusion?”
    #30.2 David Appell on 2009-07-26 17:19 (Reply)

    David: Would the dishonesty not be completely transparent if all of skeptics work was rejected for publishing? You miss the point entirely again! And my point was that if garbage like the paper I refer to above gets past the “gate keepers” when it is so obviously wrong fundamentally, then peer review means little. There is no competence to guide it or it is influenced by money and corruption. Allen and Sherwoods paper is a scientific disgrace and it passed review. What does this say about all “peer reviewed” papers in climate? Under this scenario, everything is suspect and its up to the readers accumulated knowledge to grade it. This is sad for the public. Who do they trust???

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      You seem to “trust” papers that agree with your preconceived notions, and reject them otherwise. Hence one published paper is “crap,” but another is basis enough to falsely libel a man’s reputation.

      I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but science isn’t a matter of “trust.” It’s a matter of what can be proven. Ultimately you can’t “trust” any paper until you have assured yourself of its conclusions, but failing that not until its results have been verified and replicated and reproduced. And then again and again. (That’s why real climate scientists know Mann et al’s work is not really very wrong, let alone “fraudulent” — it has been reproduced by about 8 other groups using different procedures, and, as you’ll soon see, by a completely new method.)

      That’s why we believe, say, quantum electrodynamics — not because anyone “trusts” Feynman or Schwinger or Tomanaga, but because their theory works, ie explains observables. (The fact that Feynman and Schwinger and Tomonaga were extremely bright and impressive as hell doesn’t hurt.)

      So too does AGW explain observables. It never will to the extent that QED does, because it’s subject matter is much larger and more complicated. But there is no longer any doubt about AGW among real, working scientists. (Even among the few legitimate skeptics, AGW is accepted — it’s just a matter of what is the climate sensitivity?) I just attended one of the field’s major conferences, and in four days the question never once came up. They have all moved on to the next questions. And the hypothesis is certainly confirmed to the point where societal policy changes are needed.

      • Chuck Wiese

        No, David, WRONG! I do not “select” which papers to trust out of a “preconceived notion”. I trust the ones that recite what I know to be fact and can be BACKED UP BY DATA. All of the papers you refer to have no data or empiracle evidence to back them up. You have it backwards as usual. The papers that you rely on are solely constructed with theory and the data now proves the theory is wrong. And real working scientists have no doubt about AGW and have moved on? WHAT CRAP! It is the other way around! There is an increasing number of skeptical scientists every month who realize the increasing hollowness of the whole AGW hypothesis. DATA is what it lacks in proofs and DATA is what is killing it! If there were ever any “deniers” it is the “real scientists” you refer to that refuse to accept the reality that they are wrong. Now we hear from these same groups, including Pierrehumbert and Schmidt that global warming will take a recess for the next twenty years. Something they never contemplated before with their concocted crap of the past. That’s a good one. We are supposed to believe that the earth is being radiated to a higher temperature, but now we are asked to believe that the photons from CO2 decided to turn themselves off for now, or better yet, maybe an admission that something else really controls climate, not CO2! Were not really sure what, but we know that CO2 will magically turn itself on in twenty years when maybe Schmidt and Pierrehumbert might die of old age and never solve the climate mystery. Horror of horrors!

        Sorry David, you and these clowns are really making fools out of yourselves. WHAT A BUNCH OF SELF SERVING CRAP!!

        Chuck Wiese
        Meteorologist

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “Chuck Wiese, I see that you’re still unable to disagree with anyone without labeling them an idiot, liar, moron, or fraud. You should really rethink that strategy — it does not reflect well on your position.”
    #28.2 David Appell on 2009-07-26 17:07 (Reply)

    David: I reserve those words for you. I actually am far more sympathetic to the general public that is not trained in science and attempt to educate them. In your case, you claim a Ph.D. in physics and should know better but you don’t. You keep misrepresenting science with your posts, especially atmospheric science, and never recant. You just ignore facts that you want to and change topic when you’re cornered.

    Chuck Wiese

    • David Appell

      > David: I reserve those words for you.

      No Chuck Wiese, you call everyone you disagree with names — a review of this very page reveals that. See 09:16 above and the phrase “incessant liars.” Or the word “idiot,” or “kooks,” or the phrase “frivolous liars.” You do this with everyone. You also do it in talks and on the radio (where the word “disingenuous” was applied to a group testifying to something you disagreed with).

      As I wrote, it does not reflect well on your position, or your confidence in it.

      • Chuck Wiese

        David: Well, atleast you’re listening. I’m hoping for the day when you finally will learn enough about atmospheric science like real meteorologists do and see how wrong YOUR preconceived notions were

        Chuck Wiese
        Meteorologist

      • Conscience of a Moonbat

        David Appell ought to start his own blog where his efforts could stand a chance of gaining the attention he craves. Folks are just tuning out the comments when they see his name. Quark Soup!

  • Anonymous

    David,
    Your despicable misrepresentations and fanatical advocacy for insane policies are far worse than the “name calling” you’re diverting into.

    Your avoidance of the many fatal flaws in the AGW movment, like so many up thread here, is insulting beyond name calling.

    And you can’t dismiss any and all accurate characterizations of your unethical handiwork simply by labeling them name calling.

    Besides, what exactly would YOU call a government official who fabricates science or those who repeat it?
    It’s not just “disagreeing” you are engaged in.

    Any labels attached to your crap are deserved and irrelevent up against the facts and science of AGW.
    Quit hiding behiond the pretense of offense and try and address the many specifics raised about the AGW fraud.

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “Chuck Weise, your “15 micron saturation” argument is old science that was corrected decades ago as climate scientists treated the composition of the atmosphere more realistically. There’s a long explanation of exactly this point by Ray Pierrehumbert in RealClimate, June 26, 2007.”
    #14.1 David Appell on 2009-07-26 09:17 (Reply)

    David: I didn’t catch this earlier post so I respond now. Why don’t you elaborate to us what Ray Pierrehumbert said? I can’t find the post you refer to. BTW, I have read his paper that describes the state of the climate. It was actually a nicely done piece that thuroughly reviewed the radiation and hydrodynamics of the atmosphere. A very good general review paper of these topics. He derived everything correctly, but doesn’t ever prove anything! What he does do is is alot of hand waiving and makes assertions that increasing Co2 raises the emisssion height of the troposphere, shows the Poisson equation to show us how that might work, but again offers no proof or derivations that tie ANYTHING together about CO2 that he and his friends at RealClimate say is happening.

    If I had to guess, I would bet that he refers to the wings of the absorption bands to make his case. I already know the difference and have for years as well, but I can’t respond unless I know what he says.

    Chuck Wiese

  • Ron Glynn

    I am still clapping for Mr. Wingard, but my arms are getting tired. I will stop now and move onto other things. Thanks for all the give and take on this issue. A couple of you seemed to have a lot of fun.

  • wookie

    From Oregonlive.com:

    “Wingard said that in 2001, when his son was 7, he hit his son on the head in a moment of anger. He declined to provide details, other than to say it left a bump on his son’s head. He said that criminal charges were filed against him and he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. He said he believed it was an assault charge.”

    Ever hit your child on the head? Ever get so angry that you caused physical injury to your child? I haven’t, and neither has anyone I know. I try not to spend time in the company of folks who do things like this. And I don’t think the world is a better place because someone who directs their anger towards their own child is holding public office.

    What would you do if someone else hit your child on the head hard enough to “leave a bump,” and in a “moment of anger”?

    That’s why they offer anger management classes.

    BTW, Chuck: you seem like a very unhappy and angry fellow. I’ve never insulted you, or said anything nasty about you. Why do you choose to hurl nastiness around at every opportunity?

  • John in Oregon

    Interesting. I challenge your warmest ever (GISS) and you respond with > *Actually that idea comes from UAH data and is not a strict scientific conclusion…*

    Really? And it’s so easy to check out what you said in this thread.

    You said > “this is the warmest decade in recorded history; second warmest was the 1990s *by one measure (NASA GISS), 2005 was the warmest year in recorded history.* Last month was the 2nd warmest June in recorded history.” Bold in the original.

    Walks like a GISS, quacks like a GISS

    You did add more > *Actually that idea comes from UAH data and is not a strict scientific conclusion (hence I wrote “…may have been…”*

    Yes I saw all the caveats that give you an out. Its clear you wanted us to think things were getting warmer and warmer.

    Question is, what does the data say for June 2009, which you claim was the 2nd warmest June in recorded history? You say it comes from UAH. hummmmmmmmmmm

    GISS went *up,* and is now the largest June anomaly since 1998. Both the UAH and RSS satellite data sets, global temperature anomaly went *down* in June. The exact numbers are:
    *GISS .63C
    RSS .075
    UAH .001*

    The UAH anomaly was +0.001 °C, meaning that the *global temperature was essentially equal to the average June temperature since 1979. June 2009 actually belonged to the cooler half of the Junes since 1979.*

    Which should we believe, your assertion or the DATA?

    When I said the folks over at RealClimate admit that … You responded > * Where exactly do they say that?*

    Well you got me there. They didn’t say we admit the trend is flat to down. What they did is begin posting articles justifying why the trend is flat to down. For example;

    The commentary by Kyle Swanson, University of Wisconsin, Warming Interrupted.

    And this;

    “We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño.”

    Admission of flat to down, or, justification of flat to down? Same difference.

    You say > *Regarding the ice sheets of Antarctica, I believe the findings of modern day geology and climate science far more than a 500 yr old map of questionable origin.*

    Its not just some old map drawn by some old guy. Oronteus Finaeus was a well-known French cartographer in a time when the fortunes of nations rose and fell on the quality of their trade maps.

    Of course modern day geology is important. Modern day geological technology was able to find the mountain ranges shown on the map.

    The question remains how does this map contain information that should not be obtainable if your arguments hold water?

  • Chuck Wiese

    Wookie: Hearing and reading a near continuous stream of lies and BS about something that I studied and gave a good part of my life to would not make anyone a happy camper. I have been fighting this battle about AGW for a good ten years now, and watched lie after lie get perpetrated to the public by all of the special interests that have a 4 billion a year bank roll being funded largely by the federal govenment to pitch cap and trade. It does sicken me that the public at large which includes me are having to pay for the lie that sells the soap! There are alot of people that are involved in this movement making handsome livings off of the selling of the lies. Their conscience doesn’t bother them a bit to refer to anyone who disagrees with them “deniers” ( a deliberate insult hurled to infer anyone who doesn’t believe in AGW is evil like the deniers of the Jewish holocaust. ) and to ignore any evidence that disproves their theories as has been done many times by David Appell, who frequently makes appearances on these sites. Appell has been told the truth and given plenty of facts that ought to make any reasonable minded person pause and question their beliefs. He also claims a Ph.D. in physics, so I admit that I am harsher to him than I would be to an average Joe who is curious, because like I told Appell, he should know better with his education but frequently ignores important principles in atmospheric science that cast serious doubts over his beliefs and continues to pass AGW off as if it was fact rather than a weak hypothesis which nature is already disproving.

    You haven’t seen the downside to Appell. He has told me to f— off in private e-mails and told me never to e-mail him. Then he has the audacity to state that my name calling doesn’t suite me well. BTW, I try and stay away from personal insults, but rather insult a bad idea or claim when it isn’t true. If I was short with you, then my apologies. But you did come onto this thread with a personal attack against Wingard. His article was about climate change, not about integrity or a subject that really opens that door to discussion. I have seen warmers do this constantly as a diversion tactic to what is being discussed. If you are not in that camp, then my hope is that you walk away from this thread with serious doubts about the AGW movement. That is my goal.

    You have never met me. Your preconceived notions are wrong. I am as easy going as the next guy when I am not around scamming and untruths about the knowledge of my profession.

    Chuck Wiese

    • v person

      Chuck, for a person who tries to stay away from insults, you do a pretty good job here of impugning the honesty, integrity and character of the entire scientific establishment that has done the research, analysis, and modelling that led to the generally accepted conclusions about global warming. You decry the use of teh term “denier” and then use the term “warmer” in the next paragraph.

      You claim to have evidence that disproves global warming theory. If true, then submit it, publish it and win yourself a nobel. The world, including me, will thank you for having saved us the huge hassle of retooling our energy system. Believe it or not, even those of us who have accepted global warming as a reality we need to deal with would rather the whole thing were not true.

      I agree with you about the personal attack on Wingard. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand and Wookie should drop it.

  • Chuck Wiese

    V Person: You took these same words right out of David Appell’s mouth as he had said the exact same thing to me on another post: “You claim to have evidence that disproves global warming theory. If true, then submit it, publish it and win yourself a nobel.”

    If I had to guess, I would say you are David Appell, using a different ID.

    I am not impugning any honesty or integrity, that’s the problem, and for someone like you, David, who claims to know science, you seem to think it works backwards! This is idiotic!

    It is not up to me to disprove what has already been established in atmospheric science and meteorology years ago. It is up to believers with this concocted theory that CO2 will change the climate to prove it! YOU MADE THE ASSERTION…YOU PROVE IT’S TRUE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS, DAVID! AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS!

    The founding work in atmospheric science and the initial radiation model created by William Elsasser from Harvard University established that CO2 is a gas with secondary absorptive and radiative powers compared to water vapor. This makes it impossible to control the nocturnal radiative flux from the earth’s surface. Only water vapor can do this. Climate modeling is NOT PROOF of AGW or DISPROOF of Elsasser’s work. It supplanted the founding work with shakey, unproven theories about CO2 that have turned out to be wrong. That is factual, David. Perhaps if warmers like you could prove you are correct over the established physics, they could get the nobel. If I was a betting man, I would bet against them. And the blind assertion that modeling provides a clearer picture than founding work is not only wrong, it deserves every bit of scientific impugning it can get. That is a claim founded in sheer arogance and claim of skills that every meteorologist knows cannot be true.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • v person

      “If I had to guess, I would say you are David Appell, using a different ID.”

      Well then your guess would be wrong.

      “and for someone like you, David, who claims to know science, you seem to think it works backwards! ”

      Now you are wrong twice. I’m not David and I make no such claims.

      “It is up to believers with this concocted theory …”

      Concocted? Now why would scientists concoct this? What is the motive of the scientific establishment? I’m no scientist, but doesn’t science often advance by positing a theory and then holding it up there to be disproved? Did Einstein “prove” relativity? Did Darwin “prove” evolution?

      “That is factual, David. …”

      Error number 3. I’m still not David.

      “Perhaps if warmers like you …”

      Again with the “warmers.” Why is it a pejorative to accept the conclusions of science?

      “That is a claim founded in sheer arogance and claim of skills that every meteorologist knows cannot be true.”

      Then why is the American Meteorological Society on record (since 2003) saying global warming is happening and is caused by greenhouse gasses put in the air by humans?
      http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

  • Chuck Wiese

    V. Person Writes:”Concocted? Now why would scientists concoct this? What is the motive of the scientific establishment? I’m no scientist, but doesn’t science often advance by positing a theory and then holding it up there to be disproved? Did Einstein “prove” relativity? Did Darwin “prove” evolution?”

    Answer to your first two questions:Money and employment! Money and employment! Science doesn’t work by putting out a theory and declaring it to be true without a proof. It must be proven first. AGW is not proven. Appell and others like him declare it is and they have offered up no proof. Scientific evidence has been advanced that proves that it is not true. Einsten’s relativity has been proven by experiment. Darwins theory is partially proven. But I’m not going to be swayed off of subject by your posing these two latter questions. You can always hypothesize through some sort of philosophical sophestry that this isn’t necessarily so. This servers no purpose in the AGW discussion except to sidetrack.

    V PERSON WRITES: ” Why is it a pejorative to accept the conclusions of science?”

    AGW IS NOT A CONCLUSION OF SCIENCE! It is an unproven assertion grounded in arrogance by climate modeling and those scientists who are stupid enough to risk their reputations on it without adequate testing of their unproven and scientifically impossible modeling.

    V PERSON WRITES: “Then why is the American Meteorological Society on record (since 2003) saying global warming is happening and is caused by greenhouse gasses put in the air by humans?”
    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

    The American Meteorological Society has been run by academics since inception. For the Society to make a policy statement without polling its members, which it has done, proves nothing and does not make them correct. There are many atmospheric scientists and meteorologists who vehemently disagree with this statement. William Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus faculty from Colorado State University is just one of them and wrote a scathing letter to the Society and admonished them for giving an AMS award to James Hansen, and made it clear he disagrees with the position adopted by the leadership. The AMS is becoming a political body to take this position without demanding the proof necessary that CO2 can drive climate, and it was quite an inappropriate step for the Board to take this position not caring or bothering to poll the membership for their opinions.

    I still think you are David Appell. Your writing style is a virtual carbon copy of his.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

  • Chuck Wiese

    V Person: I’ll add to my last statement that I also believe the scientists who willingly participated in convincing the political bodies of this country to adopt punitive legislation against the public in terms of higher taxes and energy costs ( which in essence permanently funds these federal and state bureaucracies that have distorted climate records and made unprovable assertions about Co2 that will lead to unjust monetary rewards and their continued employment from the taxes) deserve swift and permanant firings for their willingness to either lie outright or make unjustifiable conclusions about Co2 and climate. This, in my mind, puts a bulls eye on James Hansen as the first to be fired. I would also strip him of his government pay grade retirement or reduce it to an amount that would make him a victim of his own evil works in terms of paying higher energy costs and taxes that would reduce his lifestyle accordingly. It would also do him well to be banished to a third world country that his actions will have helped cause more starvation of its population from much increased energy and food costs.

    Hansen had declared long ago that corporate America consisted of gluttons. But Hansen has become wealthy like Algore off of selling his snake oil climate fraud. Who are the gluttons today? Who is really commiting fraud?

    BTW, if you are not David Appell, do you care to tell me your real name?

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • v person

      For the 4th time now, I’m not David. And no, I don’t want to tell you my actual name. Too many yahoos on this site who do odd things in the cover of darkness.

      You say scientists “concocted” global warming so they could get more funds and be employed. Weren’t they already funded and employed? Do you really believe that a bunch of scientists could just make up a physical phenomena, jigger the records, get phony papers past peer review, and re-orient the entire world’s energy system all so that they could what….get more research funds? I’m sorry, but the notion is so preposterous it isn’t even worthy of a James Bond scenario. It’s the Achilles heel in the entire skeptic argument in my opinion. Scientists don’t work that way. If they did, we would have even larger problems to deal with and may as well go back to Dark Age chanting to ward off evil spirits.

      You say science advances by proofs. I’m no scientist, but I think this is only partly true. Science also advances through preponderance of evidence. No one has ever proved that the surface of the earth floats around on giant plates that push up volcanoes, create massive earthquakes, and explain the current position of continents as well as a lot about evoloution. But the theory is backed by the evidence available. As my geology prof said many years ago, “It’s the best story we have at the moment, and this is what we will go with until someone comes up with a better one.”

      It appears to me that global warming is like that. Scientists have known about CO2’s role as a greenhouse gas for a long long time. They noted that a buildup of these gasses due to industrialization might someday alter the earth’s climate. And over time built up evidence that this was indeed happening. They theorized, observed, measured, modeled, and only then concluded. There remain many uncertainties. Maybe other mechanisms will counter act the CO2 and maybe not. Maybe it won’t be as severe as is expected. But they are only telling us what they have discovered and what our risks are. Nothing more or less. Yes, some like Hansen have been ringing the alarm pretty loudly. Maybe he wants more fame or fortune, I don’t know or care. He is just one voice among many.

      You say AGW is not a conclusion of science. Yet nearly every major scientific organization in the world says that it is a reasonable conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence. Is a specific warming over a specific time frame guaranteed? No. But the general trend line with increasing CO2 is accepted by the world of science and has been for some time.

      You wrote that “every meteorologist”….not some….not most…but “every” one KNOWS AGW can’t be true. OK…that is passing strange. The organization of which they are members takes a position they know is not true? I’ll tell you what. If I were a meteorologist and my organization did something like that on an issue this important, I would resign my membership and maybe start a counter one. Has that happened? If yes, how many members defected?

      “I also believe the scientists who willingly participated in convincing the political bodies of this country to adopt punitive legislation against the public….deserve swift and permanant (sic) firings for their willingness to either lie outright or make unjustifiable conclusions about Co2 and climate”

      Two last points. The legislation that has been passed by the House is anything but punitive. The CBO estimate is the cost to the average American will be minimal…a few bucks a month. Second,
      your posts are filled with sweeping accusations, and now threats against your fellow scientists. That does not speak well for your position.

  • Anonymous

    Oh gee why would anyone impugn the honesty, integrity and character of the entire scientific establishment?”

    Because of the many fabrications coming form that establishment?

    Whic you completely ignored up thread for some reason.

    Is it OK for scientists and public officials to make up things and propogandize an agenda?
    And therefore OK for Appell to help them?

    Appell is a proven liar.

    And a major hypocrite.

    Here Appell the liar touts honesty

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3740
    The absolute worst thing science could do would be to emulate its opponents and submit to spin and hype and “reframing.” These are terrible ideas, thought up by the unscientific. Reframing is just another word for spin, dolled-up.
    The moment you abandon real science and resort to spinning and Morano-like tactics, you have admitted to losing the game. You might get a bill passed in the next Congress, but nothing permanent will come of it and the cause of science will be lost.
    Scientists know this, which is why they stick to science. Activists don’t know it, which is why they look foolish and no one listens to them except the choir.”

    But look how David does exactly what he condemns.
    He was previoulsy caught multiple times and repreatedly denied hwi own work when laid in from of him.

    http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2053-Public-Opinion-Polls-Express-Doubt-about-Global-Warming.html

    DAVID
    > You the guy who attributed hurricane Katrina to global warming.

    In fact, I have never attributed such a thing, and I dare you to reproduce such a claim. You can’t. Your claim is a lie.

    No wonder you aren’t man enough to sign your real name
    #26.1 David Appell on 2009-02-10 19:35 (Reply)

    REPLY
    David,
    I’m so glad you responded as you did. You’re showing how you lack integrity.
    As you have to know I already did show your Katrina hypocrisy in an earlier blog thread.
    I posted your own article where you made that reference to Katrina and AGW.
    Well here AGAIN is your own article

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan

    These are your words in your article.

    “Those expecting that we are going to reduce our atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content to 350 parts per million are naïve activists perhaps living off the donations to their organizations. In any case, they are dreaming in la-la land.
    There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north. We want what we want, and our species is lousy at planning for the future.”

    There you are saying weather such as Katrina should be convincing us of AGW and to reduce CO2 emissions.
    Along with your baseless attributing of France’s weather to climate.
    Don’t you know weather is not climate? And climate is not weather?
    David you really are severely lacking integrity.
    #30 Anonymous on 2009-02-11 00:13 (Reply)

  • Anonymous

    The chain of deceit which Appell is a part of now has Bill Bradbury lecturing our school children that global warming is causing ocean dead zones off the Oregon coast.

    OSU professor, and now head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco generated that falsehood aabout ocean dead zones. Her own OSU research group cautioned that they were unable to establish the extent of the link, if any, to global warming.
    But the activists like Appell, Blue Oregon and the media distributed that fabricated link around the globe.

    This is not an isolated fabrication and these manipulations are a very germane aspect of the AGW fraud and why skeptisism is so widespread.
    In her new role Lubchenco has echoed a nother whopper from NOAA, that “climate models are robust enough to predict wind paterns 100 years from now.”
    No such model exists, period.
    The willingness to make up things leaves Lubchenco, NOAA, Hansen, NASA and Gore, et al, on the without any integrity.

    The many other egregious manipulations by the AGW team are now being exposed to near collapse of their agenda.
    David is losing, badly.

    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
    http://www.icecap.us
    http://www.climateaudit.org

  • Chuck Wiese

    For the 4th time now, I’m not David. And no, I don’t want to tell you my actual name. Too many yahoos on this site who do odd things in the cover of darkness.

    OK , DAVID. BUT THAT’S FUNNY CAUSE NOBODY BOTHERS ME USING MY REAL NAME.

    You say scientists “concocted” global warming so they could get more funds and be employed. Weren’t they already funded and employed? Do you really believe that a bunch of scientists could just make up a physical phenomena, jigger the records, get phony papers past peer review, and re-orient the entire world’s energy system all so that they could what….get more research funds? I’m sorry, but the notion is so preposterous it isn’t even worthy of a James Bond scenario. It’s the Achilles heel in the entire skeptic argument in my opinion. Scientists don’t work that way. If they did, we would have even larger problems to deal with and may as well go back to Dark Age chanting to ward off evil spirits.

    THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT ALOT OF SKEPTICS THINK HANSEN HAS DONE AT NASA. HE COOKED THE BOOKS. HIS TEMPERATURE DATA IS FAR OFF OF SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS AND TRENDS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE ACCURATE.

    You say science advances by proofs. I’m no scientist, but I think this is only partly true. Science also advances through preponderance of evidence. No one has ever proved that the surface of the earth floats around on giant plates that push up volcanoes, create massive earthquakes, and explain the current position of continents as well as a lot about evoloution. But the theory is backed by the evidence available. As my geology prof said many years ago, “It’s the best story we have at the moment, and this is what we will go with until someone comes up with a better one.”

    WHEN YOU SIGN ON AS DAVID APPELL, THAT IS WHO WHO CLAIM TO BE, A SCIENTIST. AND FOR SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS YOU ARE NOT, YOU SEEM TO HAVE ALOT OF OPINIONS AND CLAIM INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW SCIENTISTS WORK. HOW DID YOU STUMBLE UPON ALL OF THIS? ALOT OF IT IS SELF CONTRIVED BULLSHIT.

    It appears to me that global warming is like that. Scientists have known about CO2’s role as a greenhouse gas for a long long time. They noted that a buildup of these gasses due to industrialization might someday alter the earth’s climate. And over time built up evidence that this was indeed happening. They theorized, observed, measured, modeled, and only then concluded. There remain many uncertainties. Maybe other mechanisms will counter act the CO2 and maybe not. Maybe it won’t be as severe as is expected. But they are only telling us what they have discovered and what our risks are. Nothing more or less. Yes, some like Hansen have been ringing the alarm pretty loudly. Maybe he wants more fame or fortune, I don’t know or care. He is just one voice among many.

    HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU, DAVID, THAT THE FOUNDING WORK IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE NEVER CONCLUDED OR ACCEPTED CO2 AS A MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS. YOU, HANSEN, SCHMIDT AND PIERREHUMBERT ASSERT THAT CONCLUSION WHICH CONTRADICTS THE FOUNDING WORK. THE PROBLEM IS, NONE OF YOU EVER OFFERED A SCIENTIFIC REFUTATION TO THE FOUNDING WORK. INSTEAD, IT WAS SUPPLANTED WITH UNWORKABLE CLIMATE MODELS.

    You say AGW is not a conclusion of science. Yet nearly every major scientific organization in the world says that it is a reasonable conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence. Is a specific warming over a specific time frame guaranteed? No. But the general trend line with increasing CO2 is accepted by the world of science and has been for some time.

    THIS IS BULLSHIT. WHAT HAS PROVING AGW BECOME, A LEGAL PROCEDURE? YOU NEED TO MEASURE THE RADIATIVE FORCING YOU CLAIM IS CAUSING THE WARMING, AND THEN SHOW THAT WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PHYSICAL PROCESSES OF THE EARTH ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM, THAT CO2 IS, INFACT, CAUSING THE EARTHS TEMPERATURE TO RISE. YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE RUNNING AROUND CLAIMING THIS IS SO HAVE DONE NOTHING OF THE SORT EXCEPT TO SHOW A RSING TEMPERATURE THAT STOPPED RISING IN 2004 AND NO LONGER TRACKS WITH RISING CO2 LIKE THAT IDIOT ALGORE TELLS US IT WAS SUPPOSED TO CONTINUE TO DO. THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE GOING FOR YOU IS A BOGUS CLIMATE MODEL WHICH HAS FAILED AND THAT ANYONE WHO REALLY UNDERSTANDS ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU IT WOULD DO. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME IN THE RECORD THAT TEMPERATURE AND CO2 DO NOT TRACK.

    You wrote that “every meteorologist”….not some….not most…but “every” one KNOWS AGW can’t be true. OK…that is passing strange. The organization of which they are members takes a position they know is not true? I’ll tell you what. If I were a meteorologist and my organization did something like that on an issue this important, I would resign my membership and maybe start a counter one. Has that happened? If yes, how many members defected?

    GET OUT YOUR EYEGLASSES AND REREAD. I SAID EVERY METEOROLOGIST KNOWS THAT THE MODELING CLAIMS OF CO2 WARMING THEORY ARE IMPOSSIBLY CONSTRUCTED WITH A MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL LIMIT SET IN ANY LARGE TIME INTEGRATION. THE ISSUE OF THE AMS CLAIMING SOMETHING THAT ALOT OF MEMBERS DISAGREE WITH BY ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH TO START A MASS RESIGNATION. ALOT OF THE OTHER FUNCTIONS ARE OK.

    “I also believe the scientists who willingly participated in convincing the political bodies of this country to adopt punitive legislation against the public….deserve swift and permanant (sic) firings for their willingness to either lie outright or make unjustifiable conclusions about Co2 and climate”

    Two last points. The legislation that has been passed by the House is anything but punitive. The CBO estimate is the cost to the average American will be minimal…a few bucks a month. Second,
    your posts are filled with sweeping accusations, and now threats against your fellow scientists. That does not speak well for your position. ASK TODD WYNN ABOUT THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES, DAVID. HE KNOWS MORE ABOUT AGW POLITICS AND ECONOMIC AFFECTS THAN YOU DO. BUT WAIT, LET ME GUESS, YOU ARE AN EXPERT HERE TO, AS I SEE YOU ARE ALREADY BUSY ON HIS THREAD INJECTING MORE OF YOUR SHALLOW BS INTO THE PICTURE. YOU ARE WHAT “ANNONYMOUS” SAYS YOU ARE….A POLITICAL HACK WHO WORKS FULL TIME FOR THE AGW CAUSE CLAIMING JUST ABOUT ANYTHING FROM YOUR BULLSHIT THAT YOU THINK WILL STICK WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SELL THE SOAP.
    #43.1 v person on 2009-07-28 10:44 (Reply) CHUCK WIESE METEOROLOGIST

    • v person

      Wow. I’m still not David, so you should save some of your venom for him.

      Think of it this way. If you are this far wrong on determining identity, should you really be so confident on your science?

  • Anonymous

    wow,
    v ,

    how clever.

    That must mean something.

    Think of it this way.

    If you are so wrong, duped and a liar on global warming you’re probably a liar on health care, land use, transportation and education.
    Probably the whole Portland/BlueOregon lunacy.

    • v person

      Think of it this way. If a majority of scientists, the people and their representatives are all lunatics, that makes you among a diminishing number of sane people.

  • Anonymous

    Think of it this way.
    It doesn’t matter what the proportion of scientists cling to the lunacy of AGW is.
    Unless you choose to ignore the many fabrications they have concocted and leave science out of it.

    But here once again you show clearly your ignorance and lame approach to reality.

    How is it you came to believe the AGW side is growing and the skeptic side diminishing?
    Where did you get that fabrication?

    Really your ignorance or deliberate obscuring of the sizeable and growing global scientific community that rejects AGW is simply more of your dishonesty.

    http://www.icecap.us
    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
    http://www.climateaudit.org

    • v person

      I did not say one side was growing or diminishing. Read what I wrote.

  • Anonymous

    v idiot,

    you said, “that makes you among a diminishing number”

    hmm, I read that as you thinking the non “majority” is a diminishing number.

    • v person

      OK. I should have said “diminished.” My apologies.

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)