Lars Larson: PNW Energy

Exactly what is wrong with producing low cost energy for the Pacific Northwest?

Portland General Electric announced plans to build two natural gas plants by 2015 and then spend half a billion dollars to keep its Boardman coal-fired plant burning for thirty more years. It would supply low cost electricity to the Pacific Northwest.

Immediately, the environmental groups went after PGE.

This is what is really terribly sad about our situation. This part of the region needs low cost power. Without low cost power you’re not going to have jobs. Without low cost power the average person is going to find it very difficult to live in a place that’s cold in the winter.

The fact is, PGE is doing the right thing. All the environmentalists can do is say “tear out the dams” and “don’t build windmills because it might hurt the birds.” All of us, I guess, will be left to freeze in the dark.

It doesn’t make any sense and PGE’s plans to provide low cost electricity to a region that desperately needs it, that plan really does make sense.

“For more Lars click here”

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 593 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    Big Electric is evil.
    No doubt about it.

  • Anonymous

    This is why it’s imperative for Republicans to energize their distancing from AGW and leave that to choke the Democrats.
    Without the Democrat’s global warming fraud these extremist environmental groups are left to whallow in their extremism without the planetary threat they enjoy.

    There is of course nothing wrong with natural gas, coal and oil fossil fuel uses without the CO2 scare.
    And despite the other left wing whopper of peak oil etc, there is more than enough abundant supplies of all three to satisfy energy demands far into a future where new technologies take over.

    Unfortunately the loony left is attempting to outlaw the horse and buggy befroe the automobile arrives.

    I once again urge Republican leadership to come out, loud and agressive, with condemnation of the AGW movement and all it represents.

    ANY Republican candidate who embraces any part of the left wing AGW movement must be disqualified and rejected by the rank and file.

    Got that Allen?

    • Andrew Plambeck

      “ANY Republican candidate who embraces any part of the left wing AGW movement must be disqualified and rejected by the rank and file.”

      I believe they call that getting “Joel Haugened.”

  • v person

    “Exactly what is wrong with producing low cost energy for the Pacific Northwest? ”

    Exacly nothing, except when that low cost energy comes at the expense of the stable climate we depend on. Boardman is the biggest polluter in the state. It ought to be phased out, not kept in operation for another 20 years.

    • jim karlock

      Please show us the proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous global warming or
      quit promoting Al Gore’s lies about climate.

      Actually you cannot prvide this key piece of proof so please STFU.

      thanks
      JK

      • Sagano

        Hey JK, we are talking “politics” not “proof” here.

        • jim karlock

          v person mentioned a “stable climate” as a cost of low cost energy. He is deluded, don’t join him.

      • David Appell

        Jim, I keep asking, but you refuse to define your own terms: What do you mean by “dangerous?”

        Dangerous to whom? People? All people? Poor people? Rich people? Africans? Or Australians? Texas corn farmers? What about Russian and Canadian wheat farmers? Oregon vineyards? Polar bears? Migrating birds? Glaciers? Reservoirs? Fish? Plankton? Frog species in central American that already seem to have gone extinct from climate change?

        How dangerous? How much change in regional drought indices is “dangerous?” Or does it depend where? California va. Australia? New Mexico vs. the Sahel? Is it dangerous to a Texas corn farmer if his corn crop is only 50% of normal this year due to their drought, or does it have to be 65%? Or 50% two years in a row? Or five years in a row? If it’s dangerous to him but advantageous to commodity traders, is it still “dangerous?” What if it results in lower food prices, but less farmers? Is that dangerous, and, if so, how much dangerous?

        What is the unit of danger, anyway?

        Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?
        Is it dangerous to coral now bleaching? How much coral degradation must take place before it is dangerous to other ocean inhabitants, or even man? 75%? 90%? Please define.

        Would a 30 cm rise in sea level be dangerous to the Netherlands? Or would it take 80 cm? What about to Venice? Or south Florida? Is it the same danger for Venice as for south Florida? Or is it only half as dangerous? If so, how are you mathematically defining dangerous?

    • Anonymous

      There is no such thing as a “stable climate” you idiot.

      • David Appell

        Sure there is such a thing as a “stable” climate — that free of influence from external perturbations. That includes the artificial and near immediate transfer of carbon from the earth’s surface to its atmosphere.

  • Max

    The only thing stable that you can count on is for the lib dems to be insanely wrong on every issue, including this one.

    • v person

      Yes. That’s it. We lib dems and science are wrong as usual. Your make believe world is reality.

      JK wirtes: “Actually you cannot prvide this key piece of proof so please STFU.”

      Rudeness aside, nothing can be proved in advance. Physical events can be modelled, and probablities calculated. Intelligent people can then draw conclusions based on science. Less than intelligent people are also free to draw conclusions at odds with science, and insult those who disagree with them. That is what makes this a great if sometimes exasperating country.

      • Steve Plunk

        Given that Mann has been proven junk and the “hockey stick” tossed aside why should we rely on any computer modeling? It’s so easy to manipulate and so far the projections have failed to materialize. Intelligent people can also spot a ruse a mile away. Skepticism is an essential part of science and so far climate change has not withstood skepticism.

        Climate change is losing more credibility every day. Face it, it was an attempt to fool people.

        • v person

          I guess the obvious answer is that Mann has not been proven junk and the hockey stick has not been tossed aside by actual scientists. And even if you throw out all the comupter models you still have basic physics, which predicted a rise in temperature associated with CO2 increase in the 19th century, way before there were any computers.

          “Climate change is losing more credibility every day. Face it, it was an attempt to fool people. ”

          Losing credibility with who? You may have missed it, but we just had an election where both of the leading candidates accepted the reality of glogal warming and both had similar plans to deal with it. Together they gor 99% of the vote, and the fellow with the stronger plan got well more than 1/2 of that. And do you really think that a bunch of climate scientists at universities around the world all got together and made this whole thing up? That defies any logic whatsoever.

          • jim karlock

            *Dean:*
            I guess the obvious answer is that Mann has not been proven junk and the hockey stick has not been tossed aside by actual scientists.

            *JK:*
            Mann’s hockey stick was proven junk. By an actual scientist under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences.

            And you know it, because it has been posted here several times. But to repeat:

            A National Academy of Sciences report found the hockey stick deeply flawed and that the peer review process fell apart. Here is what a National Academy of Sciences statistical expert had to say:

            *Wegman report, page 4: *
            In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

            *JK:*
            The Wegman report was commissioned by congress and done by the National Academy Of Sciences. Wegman is a world renowned statistical expert and former head of the National Academy of Sciences statistics division. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years – This free PDF was downloaded from: nap.edu/catalog/11676.html )

            *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49:*
            (MBH is Mann’s hockey stick paper): Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.
            *JK:* MBH98/99 are the papers that brought us the hockey stick.

            *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49:*
            The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.

            *Wegman Report, item 6, page 49:*
            Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs.

            *Wegman Report, page 49:*
            1. In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete. The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggests that the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been. . .

            *Wegman Report, page 49:*
            2. In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. . .

            *JK:* MM03, MM05a are the blogger’s papers that exposed the errors. See ClimateAudit.org

            *Wegman Report, page 49, item 3:* . . Because the temperature profile in the 1902-1995 is not similar, because of increasing trend, to the millennium temperature profile, it is not fully appropriate for the calibration and, in fact, leads to the misuse of the principal components analysis. However, the narrative in MBH98 on the surface sounds entirely reasonable on this calibration point, and could easily be missed by someone who is not extensively trained in statistical methodology. Dr. Mann has close ties to both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University. We note in passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations9. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

            *Wegman Report, page 49:*
            8. Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
            mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years. . .

            *Wegman Report, page 52:*
            Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

            *Dean:*
            And even if you throw out all the comupter models you still have basic physics, which predicted a rise in temperature associated with CO2 increase in the 19th century, way before there were any computers.

            *JK:* That’s crap & you know it. That whole postulate was thrown out years ago. Only to be revived by AL Gore by lying to the popular press as part of a get rich scheme.

            Again I ask where is your proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming?

            Please quit repeating Al Gore’s lies.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            No, Mann’s work or the hockey stick have not been proven wrong. It could have been done better, yes — all science can, in principle. (Even all nonscience.) But it was groundbreaking and such work always looks rough in retrospect, especially given all the attention it has received. Mann’s work is now about 13 yrs old, a huge amount of time in a fast developing field. But it has been verified by about 8 other groups doing independent analyses, and, as you’ll see in a few weeks, is also the result of an entirely new mathematical technique used to reconstruct temperatures. Climatologists have no doubt about its general veracity, or, more to the point, the seriousness of our current alteration of the environment.

  • Bob Clark

    Natural gas generated electricity costs about 5 to 8 cents per Kwh. And coal is in the 5 cent per Kwh range. Unsubsidized wind energy runs about 8 to 10 cents per Kwh, and unsubsidized Solar is by far most expensive at 75 cents per Kwh. Unfortunately, Oregonians believe in happy talk about how solar and wind will easily supply our energy needs and create an economic boom in “green” jobs. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and so Oregon is already paying in sub-par economic performance for its unrealistic beliefs.

    I don’t see much environmental benefit from this “green” movement either. The south end of the Gorge is blighted with these big blender like windmills dominating the scenery. I find the black silhouttes of oil well seasaw pumps in places like Los Angeles county to be more eye appealing than wind mill farms. And you produce a lot more energy per acre from oil and natural gas wells.

    • David Appell

      Actually solar energy is about $0.35/kW-hr, but the other numbers you cite for coal, oil, and gas are only true if you ignore the huge external costs associated with their use. Foremost of these is the environmental destruction of the atmosphere and oceans, but it includes the cost of fighting the Iraq Wars (both of them), damage from oil tanker spills, the immense environmental damage that is taking place with mountaintop removal for coal mining, the health consequences of dirty air from mining such materials and from burning oil for transportation, etc.

      When you add all this together, what are your numbers then? I doubt you even have a clue.

  • Stalan Sunstien

    As a free and open society we have the power to stop this madness but we just sit and stare at the car wreck we call an energy policy. As a population who’s majority does not believe in the “global warming religion” and think that the “cap & trade scam” is disgusting. We do nothing about it. People Demand what is yours, don’t take no for an answer. As a people make a law that bars the eco terrorist from running to the liberal courts to block our progress to energy independence. Sue the clowns, tar and feather them. Put them in economic peril. Treat them as the enemy within that they are. I am sick and tired of hearing about it, just do it.

  • David Appell

    > This is what is really terribly sad about our situation. This part of the region
    > needs low cost power. Without low cost power you’re not going to have jobs.

    What do you mean by “cost?”

    Do you mean the amount that shows up on your bill? Or do you mean the amount that shows up in your bill + your environment?

    They are two very, very different things. Of course, we’re used to ignoring the latter, but that doesn’t mean someone won’t pay for it.

    > Without low cost power the average person is going to find it very difficult to live in
    > a place that’s cold in the winter.

    Given the high level of financial, educational, and intellectual achievement by the average person in, say, New England, this clearly isn’t true. It gets quite cold there. They also have some of the greatest colleges, universities, corporations, banks, institutions, writers, artists, and other achievers in the world.

  • Dave Porter

    What would be the most costly is to invest the half billion in Boardman now to clean up non-carbon pollutants, only to find out later that further upgrades to take the CO2 out, under say a cap-and-trade law, would cost so much that alternatives now would have been cheaper. We could end up investing the half-billion in Boardman only to have it operate a few years more.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Well, I think like a lot of BO’s legislation, cap and trade is not sure thing and probably will die.

      Even if one accepts all the AGW dogma, and that’s asking a lot, there still is the inconvenient truth that China and India have basically told us to shove it. At that point cap and trade becomes simply a transfer tax to the Al Gores of the world without even a veneer of environmental relevance. People won’t stand for that.

      I think what it comes down to is AGW is nice in the abstract. Its great to feel like paying a nickel deposit on a bottle is actually doing something, or having the excuse to buy another status symbol like a Prius has some global relevance. However when it comes down to concrete things like exorbitant taxes to enrich a few scammers, that starts hitting people too much in the pocket without any real upside.

      • v person

        “Even if one accepts all the AGW dogma”

        Dogma is the antithesis of science. It is those who deny AGW as reality that are locked into dogma.

        “what it comes down to is AGW is nice in the abstract. ”

        No Rupert. There is nothing nice about it. We would all be better off if the planet were not warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. But pretending that is not reality doesn’t make any of us better off.

        And no one is proposing exhorbitant taxes to deal with the problem.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Dogma is the antithesis of science. It is those who deny AGW as reality that are locked into dogma.

          Well, seems like you refuse to aknowledge lots of scientists who disagree with AGW, thats dogma.

          Seems to me you have no proof of your central belief – CO2 causes global warming. Thats dogma.

          >No Rupert. There is nothing nice about it. We would all be better off if the planet were not warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

          I didnt mean its effects were nice, I meant AGW is a real nice scam. But, like all scams, as time wears on its effectiveness wears out.

          Anyway, looks like more dogma from ya. Even if you buy into AGW, greenhouse gas emissions by man are a small part of the expcected temp rise. Even AGW beleivers conceed that.

          >But pretending that is not reality doesn’t make any of us better off.

          Who’s pretending? I think most everyone agrees man made green house gases are a small part of the problem. No one out there is arguing curtailing of man made emissions will have that huge an effect compaird to the total temperature rise even if they are curtailed.

          Yet you insist otherwise – Thats some more dogma for ya.

          >And no one is proposing exhorbitant taxes to deal with the problem.

          Obviously you have never heard of the cap and trade bill.

          I suggest you read up on it. Its expected to cost the average family quite a bit according to the CBO.

          And no, please don’t come back to me with the $150 per year Obama number. Even BO has given up on that scam.

          Have fun with your dogma Dean.

          Just keep in mind, no one takes a guys concerns very seriously when he is able to excuse ACORNS child slavery advice.

          Hey, I got it!

          You know how we could get you some more sleep at night?

          Imagine if we found out Democrats were the prime emitters of green house gasses?

          We would be done with this problem in a thrice! We could burn all the petrol we wanted! (sorry, just had to use a little bit of your lingo there )

          • David Appell

            > Seems to me you have no proof of your central belief – CO2 causes global
            > warming. Thats dogma.

            Comical.

            Believe what you want. As always, the world will roll over those who fail to look the present square in the face and who fail to acknowledge the changes necessary. Like today’s Republican party, you are merely making yourself irrelevant by choosing to look stupid.

  • Anonymous

    Perfect v,

    Your’e still lying about the Mann/Hockey Stick which was derived from the conveninet assumption the medieval warm period didn’t exist.
    I am certain you know current science shows the MWP to have been a global event that cannot be assumed away as Mann did.
    But as with so many major components of the AGW movement your truth rides on.
    You and David run the local fraud department with you unethical parotting of the alarmist’s bromides.
    You only get more insulting by referring to your side as more intelligent.

    People wanting the daily dose of the unraveling climate scam visit
    http://www.watssupwiththat.com
    http://www.icecap.us
    http://www.climateaudit.org

    and David and V-dean should go join this lying fool on his 350 mile walk.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/16/man-to-walk-350-miles-to-highlight-climate-change-no-mention-of-how-hes-getting-back/

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Yep, Dean has been insisting the hockey stick is still valid for about the past eighteen months.

      Hard to take a guy seriously when they are that out of touch on the science.

      You would think that it would occur to someone to question the veracity of a movement ( AGW ) that tried forever to deny the existence of the MWP and finally had to fess up to it.

      Well, if nothing else, Deans continued insistence on the hockey stick, after everyone here has informed him it was thrown out ages ago should underscore the fact that for Dean AGW is about politics, not really science.

      In other words, if it doesn/t come off the Democratic fax machine or from Pravda or Tass news sources, it does not exist.

    • David Appell

      > …the Mann/Hockey Stick which was derived from the conveninet
      > assumption the medieval warm period didn’t exist.

      That assumption absolutely never appears in any of Mann’s work, ever.

      Please show us where in the two MBH Nature papers of the late ’90s where this assumption is made. You can’t. In fact, I suspect you can’t even read the papers themselves. In fact, I suspect you can’t even understand their first paragraphs.

      • Not Your Pal

        The Only ASSumption we can make about you is to take your Joo head out sometime in your pathetic life.

    • David Appell

      > I am certain you know current science shows the MWP to have been a global
      > event that cannot be assumed away as Mann did.

      Actually, having studied the issue in far greater detail than you, and having done heavy reporting on it for Scientific American magazine “Hot Words: A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate,” Scientific American, June 24, 2003 (Web) and August 2003 (print), pp. 20-22), I think I know a few things about it that you don’t. The MWP claims don’t hold up, especially globally.

  • Anonymous

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/08/hurricane-katrina.html

    Appell, “I am seriously thinking of moving to Canada or Europe, because it’s clear that there will be no significant health reforms here (and, as a self-employed person who cannot buy insurance at any price because of pre-existing conditions, I think my existence just might depend on it), and certainly not anytime soon (even Obama’s plan wouldn’t start until 2013).”

    Bye bye.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Uh Oh – Wait until David finds out that the countries he loves more than his own aren’t exactly nice nice on those who immigrate merely to suck on the gravy train.

      The whole pre existing thing is such a scam anyway. I asked David what the hell pre-existing condition he had and he was outraged. None of my business so he said.

      Well, if you are asking me to pay for it, it damn well is my business.

      If you want me to be your daddy, expect to be treated like a child and answer daddy type questions.

      • David Appell

        That’s precisely your problem, Rupert: your think money entitles you to anything.

      • v person

        Rupert, it doesn’t matter if you believe me or not. Facts are facts, and Mann’s analysis that led to the famous hockey stick still stands.

        Beyond that whenever you start to lose an argument you revert to dredging up past arguments that you think you won. Is a pattern with you. Your assertion that most scientists think global warming is not substantially caused by greenhouse gasses is a hoot.

        And the $150 per person per year cost estimate WAS from the CBO, not Obama.

  • Anonymous

    David and v dean have sealed their fate as the two local dishonest baffoons who are incappable of gathering, perceiving and comprehending honest science.
    Instead their total lack of integrity has them assisting in the distribuiton of science by charlatans.

    Use this link for a full read,

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14664

    Only in Climate Science Can You Play With a Broken Hockey Stick

    By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, September 14, 2009

    An anonymous adage advises, “There is nothing wrong with making mistakes. Just don’t respond with encores.” Break your stick in ice hockey and drop it immediately or a penalty is assessed because continued use can cause serious damage (Rule 10.3). Apparently this rule doesn’t apply in climate science where a few scientists continue to use a broken “hockey stick” and cause serious damage.

    Facts proving humans are not causing global warming are not enough to stop the political juggernaut. Perhaps exposure of collusion among a small group of self-proclaimed climate scientists who continue to play with a broken stick will stop the madness forcing destructive economic policies.

    What Was The Climate Hockey Stick?
    It was warmer 1000 years ago than in the late 20th century. Existence of this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted the claim that post-industrial human CO2 was causing unprecedented warming. As Thomas Huxley said, “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Solution? Eliminate the fact. Professor Deming reported receiving an email that said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” Deming didn’t name the sender, but we now know it was Jonathan Overpeck, a lead author of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports.

    Mann, Bradley and Hughes tried to achieve Overpeck’s objective with a 1998 (MBH98) “peer reviewed” paper including the “hockey stick” graph. The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report especially the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) – the part the media cover. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (MM) used the standard technique of reproducible results to expose the serious flaws in the research. As Bishop Hill explained, “He (McIntyre) was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes…. He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.”(Source)

    Figure 1 shows the MBH98 graph (red line) against MM’s graph (blue line) with my superimposition of a hockey stick.

    Figure 1: Return of the MWP.
    Source: After McIntyre and McKitrick modified by Ball

    Some attempted to defend the hockey stick. Two researchers, Caspar Amman and Eugene Whelan, claimed confirmation of MBH98 in two papers, through the unusual tactic of a press release, as Hill explained. More problematic was their connection with Mann identified in the Wegman Report.

    Wegman: Independent Proof of the Broken Stick and More

    This leaves no doubt about the science; however, Wegman identified a larger problem about control of climate science. “In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him.” Wegman confirmed my suspicion that excessive focus on “peer review” studies was because a group had control of the process. “One of the interesting questions associated with the ‚Äòhockey stick controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process
    . Wegman writes, “Making conclusive statements without specific findings with regard to atmospheric forcings suggests a lack of scientific rigor and possibly an agenda.” For this group of climate scientists the agenda is likely either career promotion, a political objective, or both. It isn’t science because they keep repeating their mistakes.

    They’re Still Playing With a Broken Stick
    One broken hockey stick is a mistake; repetition is an agenda. The hockey stick returned in the 2007 Fourth IPCC Report. McIntyre notes, “I wasn’t sure that the Hockey Team would even make the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) this time, but here they are in the 2nd paragraph. The Team stayed in the spotlight.” It didn’t appear as a graph in the SPM, but Chapter 6 (lead co-author Jonathan Overpeck) had a modified hockey stick graph and Mann’s discredited work is in the bibliography. Wegman anticipated this denial, “Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended (to) dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs.” They lowered the profile, but continued to use the discredited method.

    The most recent example appeared in a September, 2009 issue of Science under the title, “Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling.” The article claims arctic temperatures are the warmest they’ve been in 2000 years.

    Shortly after publication McIntyre identified the Mann methodologies. “The most cursory examination of Kaufman et al shows the usual problem of picking proxies ex post: McIntyre explains “ex post” as follows, The Team selects series that go up in the 20th century and discards (sic) ones that don’t. This sort of ex-post correlation picking generates HS’s from random data,”. (Climateaudit.org)

    McIntyre is restrained in his comments, a style he has maintained throughout these exposures. It’s reasonable for one incident because it may be a mistake, but repetition makes it unreasonable because it compounds the errors and has deeper implications. Repetition in the media confers truth, it doesn’t in science, but it does underline the political nature of the activities.

    But inconvenient facts keep appearing. For example, real data destroys the claim of a hockey stick in 20th century Arctic temperatures. The questions, “What sudden recent warming?” and “What Hockey Stick?” accompany Figure 2.

    Figure 2: Circumpolar Arctic temperatures
    Source: Greenworldtrust.org.uk:

    How Has This Happened?
    Boston College Professor Philip Altbach provides one reason why they’ve succeeded.“Corruption in higher education is not a topic much discussed in academic circles. Academic institutions see themselves as somehow above the baser motivations and lower instincts of other elements of society. And society generally believes that universities are somehow special institutions imbued with the virtues of integrity.”

    Playing with a broken ice hockey stick is a minor penalty. A lifetime ban is required when scientists play repeatedly with broken research hockey sticks, especially when they drive unnecessary, devastating economic and energy policies and provide false academic justifications for politicians. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” is an anonymous but pungent truism.

  • David Appell

    Anonymous 23:28:
    If you had a real understanding of the climate situation, you’d know this: Tim Ball is not considered much of a legitimate scientist on this subject. He does no original research. He demonstrates essentially no insight into the field’s problems. He does not present, or even attend, the field’s major conferences. He is just not a player.

    All he does is write op-eds. That is, frankly, easy — anyone can do it — and there is always someone who will publish them.

    Tim Ball simply isn’t a scientific factor in this debate. He wasn’t even a big factor in his hey day. He’s far less of a factor now.

    Learn to think for yourself and not believe any old thing just because it agrees with your ideology.

  • Anonymous

    Just google “David Appell” on amazon.com and you will see that he is peer-reviewed and credible when it comes to his chosen field – gay and lesbian ‘hot spots’. But when he strays into any other kind of global warming-related commentary … buyer beware! Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  • Anonymous

    David,
    You’re only demonstrating your dishonest foolishness.
    The Tim Ball piece is not a delivery of his unqualified creation. It’s a rundown on the current hockey stick science, by experts, which you deliberatly ignore.

    You choose to smear the messenger and avoid the content.
    Tim Ball is extremely knowledgable on climate. The experts he cites have extensive background and science to back up there work.
    Your continued attempt to disqualify the AGW rejecting science is nothing but left wing activism by a fanatic.

  • Anonymous

    Appell,

    Who are you to messure Ball?

    You’re a complete fraud. You can’t even avoid the hyporciy of telling people Katrina was caused by AGW.

    You have been shown by Chuck Wiese to not have a real understanding of the climate situation.
    You’re not a scientist on this subject. You do no research. While embellishing and fabricating for one side you demonstrates essentially no insight into the field’s current status.
    You’re not a player. You’re hanger on pretender parotting the worst of the worst bromides in the AGW fraud.
    All you do is write op-eds full of BS proving that yes That is, frankly, easy — anyone can do it — and there is always someone who will publish them.

    Contrary to Tim Ball’s approach it is you and yours who prefer people not think for themselves or even consider the skeptic’s work. You call that thinking?

    More of your dishonest hypocricy surfaces with the idea I and other skpetics have some ideology in the way.

    What ideology David?

    Your left wing AGW movement is all about ideology and is the driving machine behind all of the many causes riding the CO2 emissions/global warming fraud.

    You’re the perfect demonstration of ideology retarding individual thinking.

    All things considered you’re a complete sleazebag in your advocacy. Misrepresenting, misinforming, lying and manipulating while pretending to have expertise.

    Folks who want a litany of AGW rejecting current science need to view
    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
    and
    http://www.icecap.us

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)