Politically motivated science destroying the economy

Sen Doug Whitsett

by Sen. Doug Whitsett

The College of Veterinary Medicine, at Oregon State University, has asked me to speak at their graduation for each of the past ten years. Last Sunday, Representative Whitsett and I were once again privileged to participate in their Commencement.

My comments to the new veterinarians were focused on their obligation, as scientists and new doctors, to watch over the legitimacy, and the truthfulness, of what we call science. I told them:

“Computers are wonderful devices. They can greatly enhance our ability to learn and to understand complex issues. And computer models, when accurately calibrated and properly applied, can be incredibly effective tools. 

However, a computer model is little more than a glorified mathematical spread-sheet. Its usefulness depends entirely upon the validity of the data, with which the model is calibrated. 

A corrupt investment counsellor can calibrate a spread sheet to make the worst and most inadvisable investment, look perfectly golden. So too, can an unethical scientist calibrate a computer model to fabricate virtually any outcome that he or she is paid to produce. 

The product of any computer model is only as accurate as the data selected to calibrate the model. The data used must be empirically collected, reproducible and statistically significant.

Estimated, assumed, surrogate or fabricated data points predictably produce ‘counterfeit-science’. 

Too often, we are asked to believe that biological systems are just ‘too complex’ to support science that is statistically significant. Moreover, we are expected to accept the unsubstantiated and often unverifiable assumptions that are used to calibrate the models. 

Scientific reports that are not statistically significant are by definition, insignificant. They are irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential. 

Worse, computer models are too often manipulated to fabricate alleged scientific support to justify a political end.

The modelled reports are then employed to mislead those who believe that science is the ‘final word’. 

There is no such thing as ‘the final word in science’.

Moreover, there is no such thing as ‘scientific consensus’ or ‘settled science’. The scientific method requires that we continue to question, continue to probe, and continue to debate the validity of every scientific assumption.”

Politically motivated science and statistically significant science are much like oil and water. First, they are nearly impossible to mix. Second, oil rises to the top like science that is fabricated to support political motives. Computer models that are designed and applied to achieve political ends are well on their way to destroying the economy of the Upper Klamath Basin.

For instance, the Upper Klamath Lake TMDL is based on the false assumption that development of the Upper Basin by European man has resulted in significant increases in the phosphorous concentration that helps to cause poor water quality in Upper Klamath Lake. To accept that assumption, we must ignore the reality that several thousand feet of phosphorous rich sediment accumulated in the Lake long before the Basin was settled. Further, each time the wind blows several million tons of that phosphorous rich sediment is re-suspended in the Lake water. This process has occurred for millennia and will continue to occur regardless of “restoration” efforts.

We are asked to assume that the alleged decline of the endangered suckers is the result of declining water quality. To accept that assumption, we must ignore the written journals of every European explorer that explain in detail how foul and odorous the Lake was before European man settled in the area. Further, we must ignore the effects of predation on the young suckers by birds and other introduced fish species.

We are asked to assume that Coho Salmon are threatened in the Klamath River due to water storage for the Klamath Project.

To accept that assumption, we must ignore the fact that Coho are an introduced species in the Klamath River and that the release of 70 degree plus water from Upper Klamath Lake during summer and fall months could be lethal to the fish.

We are asked to assume that the Northern Spotted Owl is endangered due to man-caused loss of habitat. To accept that assumption, we must ignore the fact that the Owl can and does breed almost anywhere and that their decline is directly attributable to the encroachment and competition of the Barred Owl.

We are being asked to assume that the declining numbers of sage grouse are the result of loss of habitat due to cattle grazing. To accept that assumption, we must ignore the facts that the sage grouse has hundreds of millions of acres of habitat; that cattle grazing significantly reduces the danger of wildfires that utterly destroy sage grouse habitat, and that government agencies refuse to promote or allow the control of predation by coyotes, skunks, raptors, crows, ravens and other critters.

We are being asked to assume that increasing global temperatures are the result of man caused greenhouse gas emissions. To accept that assumption, we must ignore the reality that global temperatures have been cooling for the past 15 years, and that the same data sets were employed to predict global winter in the mid-1970’s. The Klamath Basin is a semi-arid desert because periodic drought conditions have prevailed in the area for millennia.

We are being asked to assume that local air quality in dangerous to our health and that draconian measures are necessary for self-preservation. To accept that assumption, we must accept the absurdity that the Department of Environmental Quality can accurately model air quality from a single point of measurement within the entire Klamath Falls urban area.

Most recently, we are being asked to cooperate with the regulation of groundwater by the Oregon Water Resources Department based on a regional computer model that can only be described as fraudulent. To accept their assumption, we must accept the preposterous allegation that our aquifers are unconfined, uniform and continuous when we know they are confined, faulted, fractured and compartmentalized.

The quality of the science is directly proportional to the quality, reproducibility, and statistical significance of the date used to calibrate the computer models. Much of the data used to calibrate the groundwater model is demonstrably false. In my opinion, it was created and calibrated to support the political will of state and federal government to regulate surface and groundwater conjunctively.

We are expected to accept those assumptions because we are being told they are based on sound science. They are not!

They are based on computer modelled studies purchased by our governments to achieve predetermined political ends. 

The only way to “restore” the economy of our natural resource dependent communities is to challenge the veracity of every false assumption. The battle is lost as soon as we accept a false assumption, because the following debate and legal action is then focused on how the false assumption will be enforced rather than the veracity of the assumption.

Government agencies agree to settle with those who challenge their false assumptions using taxpayer dollars to quell the dissent. They admit no culpability, and employ signed confidentiality agreements that effectively pay for the enforced silence of those who agree to settle.

Our governments continue to employ this ruse only because the people continue to allow it to work. There is little hope for the travesty to end until the people refuse to accept government developed scientific assumptions unless they are proven to be based on statistically significant science.

Senator Doug Whitsett is the Republican state senator representing Senate District 28 – Klamath Falls

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

Posted by at 07:04 | Posted in Economy, Environment, Global Warming, Government Regulation, Natural Resources | 63 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Senator Whitsett is spot on! I have had many occasion to work on large complex economic and engineering models for government, and almost routinely, the models must be “hard-wired” to achieve the intuitive results built from past experience.

    I have no doubt this is exactly what is happening with Climate Change research. But here the hard-wiring even flies in the face of the intuition of those who actually practice climate on a day-to-day basis, namely, meteorologists. There are some 31,000 in the latter group who oppose the idea that “the science of climate change is settled.” Just think of the flags this phrase raises. Is science ever really settled? Even the theory of relativity is constantly being tested for refinement. And just this week, the Big Bang theorists have discovered a significant error in their theory.

    In the case of Climate Change we don’t really know what is normal climate. The climate is constantly changing given various artifacts of history.

    Much more important to me is not impairing the U.S economy such the U.S can not maintain its leadership role in global affairs. There have been some 70 years since WW II ended with the U.S asserting a global leadership role especially in Western Europe. We need a vigorous pace of economic growth to maintain our edge globally. This doesn’t mean re-polluting, as technology on its own fruition continues advancing to minimize energy inputs.

    War is a lot more real an outcome from impinging our economy than the perceived climate change problem itself. War is rather polluting and catastrophic and limiting it should receive commanding priority of our federal and state governments over the abstract problem of climate change. After all, the primary reason for our federal government is national defense, and in today’s world, this stretches beyond U.S borders.

  • Sally

    Agreed. Look,at the flawed “science” behind the anti fat movement that was just disclosed. You simply can never trust any scientist who,is motivated by politics rather than the truth. And so many of them are politically motivated.
    Fools and idiots abound.

  • gordonfulks

    Dear Senator Whitsett,

    Thanks for pointing out that “politically motivated science is destroying the economy.” That’s very true, both in the specific context of Klamath Falls, Oregon and the much wider context of so-called ‘Global Warming.’

    But as the late Michael Crichton said in his famous lecture at Cal Tech in 2003:

    “Personally, I don’t worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/

    For our modern way of life to survive, objective science must survive. The government (Federal, State, and local) MUST stop bribing scientists to produce the results they need for their political programs.

    Those of us who have practiced science for many decades can remember a time when honesty and objectivity were still hallmarks of our profession. Although the current President of the National Academy of Sciences is a disgrace, Michael Crichton remembers an earlier time too:

    “The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of
    Sciences, said that “Scientists best serve public policy by living
    within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific
    community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern
    the difference– science and the nation will suffer.””

    Thank you for helping us “unfrock the charlatans.” As both a politician and a scientist, you are in a position to help us to put an end to the bribery and to point out the many instances where the bribery has done great damage to objective science.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
    Corbett, Oregon USA

  • Jack Lord God

    From Galileo refuting the government imposed Ptolemaic view of the universe, right up until a patent clerk told us space and time are not wholly separate entities – science has been marked by one constant:

    Government funded science, not always, but often has the effect of reinforcing conventional views long past their expiration date.

    • 3H

      LOL.. and he also was funded by the government. Nice try, but bad history. Perhaps read your history a little more deeply?
      And, actually, I think it would be more appropriate to note that he ran afoul of religion. He wasn’t living in the Papal States and he was charged with heresy by the Church.

      I think religion has been a much larger threat to science than government. Note the nearly hysterical response to Cosmos by certain conservative Christians.

      • Jack Lord God

        >Perhaps read your history a little more deeply?

        Astonishingly bad try. And astonishingly bad writing.

        First – let’s correct your writing. Who is the “he” you are referring to? I mention two people. Well, we can guess maybe you are talking about Galileo since you bring up the church later on in your point.

        Second, stop being an idiot, Galileo’s research and development of the heliocentric view was not the result of government funding the project.

        Third – Don’t try and be a history professor. You are way out of your depth there. Galileo was imprisoned by the church, (the monarchy at the time having been put in place by the pope) so, clearly he was under the popes rule. That the man spent the rest of his life under arrest as a result of his views due to sentence passed by the church clearly indicates he was governed by them. The monarchy being appointed by the pope would also tend to confirm it.

        Personally I think this was one of your worst tries ever at the clever rebuttal. Not knowing the history of Galileo or the popes influence in medieval Italy is absolutely astonishing to me. Do they teach anything in schools now?

        • 3H

          LOL.. yes, the Pope as vicar of the Church condemned Galileo, not the Pope as head of the Papal States. You are aware that the Church hierarchy perceived their temporal spiritual roles as being different. Yes?

          Galileo did much of his work as a lecturer at the University of Padua which was funded by the Venetian Republic, and he also worked under the patronage of the Duke of Tuscany. Or, do you think he didn’t eat for all those years?

          Which monarchy appointed by the Pope? They certainly got the Pope’s blessing, but that was, by the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, pro-forma.

          “Not knowing the history of Galileo or the popes influence in medieval
          Italy is absolutely astonishing to me. Do they teach anything in schools
          now?”

          The Pope’s influence in medieval “Italy” certainly was much greater than it was in Renaissance Italy, which is the time period we are talking about.

          LOL.. in two short sentences you managed to put your complete and total ignorance on display. How embarrassing for you. So who is out of their depth?

          Evidently my teachers were better than yours.

          • truth be told

            3H-1 jackoff lordgod-0

          • .

            Nuts2U, cockhold!

          • I am batman

            Right back at ya you nut job, homophobe, science buffoon, say hi to mom from the basement. Keep voting right along with all the other uneducated thumping dingle berries and see if you and Ted Cruz, Michelle Backman and Sarah P can f-up this country any more than you already have.

          • .

            Eat your own scat and say die dee die die, Bataanhead.

          • I am everywhere

            You can eat my own scat you toolbag dbag scumbag who agrees with me half of the time as I post under may names. Snot bubbles as you idolize my posts AND SUCK UP TO MY OPPINION as long as it goes with your limited views. Your like the kid down the street who took the short bus to school. YOUR SO EASILY CONTROLLED ITS FUNNY (or sad) NOT SURE WHICH AS I AM SURE YOU VOTE. Too many fing people vote and I am sure your one of those, Maybe pathetic is the perfect descriptor. Just once JUST ONCE!!! post your oppinion, back it up with something and don’t just use this site to troll what others post and post your gobelygook. Nobody but you understands it. very few (I mean VERY FEW ever reply to anything you post) once again pathetic, that in itself should be a big BIG hint at how irrelevent you are . Say hi to Mom from the basement:)
            Sometimes I laugh at you so hard you just make my day-thanks for that!

          • .

            Gook whose squawk’n. An everywhere left wing nut unwilling to let go of his DEMschtick unless Debbie Wasserman Schultz gives him a faux pas to relax his grip provided he ‘tates for Hillary in the 2016 erection.

          • MrBill97702

            But you’re still missing his bigger point which is that science is never settled. The Church did indeed back up Ptolemy (and Aristotle) against discoveries that were increasingly casting doubt the the Earth was the center of the universe. By doing so, they held back our understanding of the universe. And they weren’t even standing for some crucial Biblical teaching, but were backing up some pagan Greed dudes.

            In Galileo’s day it was the Church. Today it’s a politicized scientific establishment. Both make the same mistake when they shut down debate by dogmatically asserting the science is settled.

          • Eric Blair

            If your understanding of history is flawed, you stand a good chance that your logic is flawed as well.

            Our understanding of the universe was not held back. The logic was clear, and in less than 100 years most of the scientific community was on board despite the Church. In fact, probably most of the Cardinals and Popes believed in a heliocentric universe as well, but couldn’t countenance a direct challenge to doctrine.

            I think what you have is a politicized scientific discourse, but mainly from the right who oppose AGW, not because of the science, but because of the proffered solutions to combat global warming.

            Religion is still a major impediment science, or would be if anyone listened to them. Who opposes evolution, the Big Bang theory, or the age of the earth?

            Whitsett’s focus on the last 15 years is a case in point: cherry picking the data to make a political point. Anyone who has done any reading at all understands the flaw in the logic. The fact that he trots this fact out, as so many other deniers do, points to a certain desperation.

          • MrBill97702

            But one of the ways politicized science (which is often gov’t funded) squelches debate is by claiming the science is settled. It has the effect of reinforcing conventional views past their expiration date. Mr. LG is exactly right on that. I’m just saying that kind of thinking isn’t limited to gov’t. Lots of people have been guilty of it. The Church in Galileo’s time made the same mistake.

          • Eric Blair

            But the science goes on.. the research goes on. The current state of the science, the consensus of the majority of the climate scientists, the opinion of some of the most prestigious scientific organizations (which, by the way, aren’t all part of a government), the best information we currently have, is that AGW is a real issue, and that our actions have potentially catastrophic consequences. Otherwise you have to acknowledge a huge conspiracy that evidently has been kept secret – no documents have come to light that show evidence of such a conspiracy.

            The denial on the part of the skeptics isn’t primarily based upon solid science, but is based upon the cherry picking of data, and the misrepresentation of that data.

            We get benefit from science, yes? Even when it’s not “settled”? How long do we wait to act? When will the evidence ever be concrete enough to convince the deniers? The skeptics aren’t playing the role of Galileo,they are playing the role of the Catholic Church of the seventeenth century: the science threatens their political orthodoxy.

          • MrBill97702

            The science does indeed go on. With global warming, for instance, the most recent forecasts by the IOCC have already been significantly downgraded since the 90’s. The reason? Because actual temperatures have fallen short of even the least severe projections. This alone should give us pause before we start implementing draconian measures that have the potential to do a lot of harm to our economy, while doing little to fix the so-called problem.

          • Eric Blair

            Doesn’t that suggest that the science is not politicized? That the way the process, the scientific method, is indeed working?

            Where the politicization is happening is among the skeptics who simply deny the science outright. They cherry pick their data and present it as if it discredits the entire body of research when it doesn’t. And they do it precisely because they don’t want to change how things are done. They attack the proposed solutions by denying the science altogether. You can’t get much more political than that.

            What measures need to be taken are a matter of politics. Even if the rate of increase has slowed, does not in any way mean that nothing should be done. At the very least, is there something wrong with decreasing the number of pollutants we throw up in the air?

          • MrBill97702

            No quite sure what you’re saying here. It sounds like you’re agreeing that early projections were overstated, yet at the same time it sounds like you’re criticizing anyone who dared to question them.

            The amount of stuff we should be pulling out of the air and water is also an economic decision. If it costs x dollars to remove 90% of pollutants, it makes sense to do so. But if it costs another x dollars to remove the next 5%, it may not be worth the effort. At some point the diminishing returns from investing more to clean up just a little bit more make the extra investment not worthwhile.

            Despite the fact that the threat from global warming is likely less (maybe a lot less) than originally thought, there’s still a lot of people who still want to implement some cap and trade scheme or using EPA to regulate CO2. The still want to implement draconian measures that have the potential to do a lot of harm to our economy, while doing little to fix the so-called problem.

          • Eric Blair

            I think you’re reading a wee bit too much into it. I’m agreeing, and accepting what you say at face value, that there has been a fine-tuning of the science. But, the major thesis, that AGM exists and is a problem, remains.

            What I find off-putting about the skeptics is that frequently they don’t present science of their own. They simply cherry pick some data to “prove” their point. They don’t have a systematic and deep criticism of the science, they frequently obfuscate and misdirect. It’s not about challenging the science itself, but trying to win the public debate.

            No one has said that global warming is less likely, just not progressing as quickly as predicted. And that is what I’m talking about — you’ve turned the issue on its head – from “there are other things going on that has slowed the rise in temperature (which is still happening), to “global warming is less likely.” Those are two very different conclusions and statements. The belief in AGW on the part of climate scientists is just as strong as it has ever been.

            Why shouldn’t CO2 be regulated? Why should air pollutants be regulated? I’m sure you can appreciate that “draconian” is a very, very subjective term.

            I think we have our philosophical differences illustrated clearly. You see limiting or eliminated pollution as primarily an economic issue; I see it as primarily as a public health issue. From my view, people who primarily see it as an economic issue will always believe that economics trumps public health. A certain amount of disease, disability and death is acceptable as long as profits are being made.

          • MrBill97702

            The types of things I’ve seen from skeptics seem quite reasonable. A brief overview of points they raise include:

            1. The fact that CO2 levels and temperatures in past millennia have fluctuated more widely than we’re observing now. This is based on analysis of ice core data and send to chronology.

            2. There’s evidence that the climate in fairly recent history has been warmer than today. This include remnants of vineyards in Europe in places where you can’t grow grapes today. Accounts from the Vikings such as The Saga of the Greenlanders corroborate this. There are probably others, but I haven’t researched them.

            3. Future warming is based on projections from computer models. A lot of people, including the kinds of scientists who study climate, are skeptical of models. Already these models have been shown to have overstated the problem.

          • Eric Blair

            #1 is not true.. CO2 levels are much higher now than they ever have been.. for the past 1000 years they have been very level.

            #2 is an example of cherry picking – we’re talking about a world-wide event, not a localized one.

            #3 The majority.. a consensus.. of climate scientists accept the theory of AGW.

            Taylor lost a title which wasn’t his to adopt. He wasn’t the State of Oregon’s climatologist, and was OSU’s climatologist. Accept oil money does tend to call into question his judgement since Industry has a very, very bad (much worse than government’s) reputation when they don’t like science that can potentially affect their bottom line.

          • MrBill97702

            Perhaps this is a discussion to revisit in 5 years. Right now the climate models that are being used can replicate the lack of warming observed in the last15 years about 2% of the time. But none of them can account for a 20 year pause. If current trends continue for the next 5 years, the prevailing views on AGW will need some serious reevaluation.

            Check out this article:
            http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/13/ipcc-lead-author-says-climate-models-are-failing.

          • Eric Blair

            Read the entire article at Spiegel

            You’ll notice that Heartland left out some significant parts of what Storch was saying. That is part of the problem, too many skeptics cherry pick the data, or statements.

            Storch beliefs that AGW is real, and a potential problem. If acidification of the ocean occurs, it may be an even larger problem than otherwise believed.

            The models need to be refined and improved. Perhaps we have time to make some changes, and cutting back on pouring pollutants into the air can’t be a bad thing. Keep in mind that Galileo was wrong about orbits of the planet – he thought the orbited in a perfect circle. However, we didn’t throw out all of his science because he was wrong about one element.

            The skeptics don’t rely on science.. they rely on cherry picking data and statements just as Heartland did. That was a perfect example. Thank you.

            By the way… we may need to wait for more like 30 years. Evidently the ocean is a back up cooling tower… but that can’t last forever, can it?

          • MrBill97702

            But the Heartland Institute was correct in what they quoted and Storch was not misquoted. The fact is although he’s firmly committed that AGW is real, he doesn’t really know for sure what’s going on. Temperatures may go up 1-3 C by the end of the century, but then again they may not. The oceans might be storing heat, but that needs more research. One thing that I got from the whole article is that Storch avoided making any predictions that might later come back to bite him. That was smart.

            Given the uncertainty that does exist should make us a little more charitable toward those with a more skeptical take. George Taylor comes to mind. He knows more about this stuff than either of us, yet holding a contrary view led to his early “retirement”. Had he held Storch’s views, he would have kept his job. He might even have been referred to as the state climatologist to add emphasis.

            Who knows? Maybe people like Taylor will one day be compared to Galileo, and Storch may draw comparisons to Tycho Brahe.

          • Eric Blair

            Yeah, I don’t think Taylor is close enough to be a Galileo by a long shot. Taylor gave the appearance of having shopped his opinions to the oil industry. Again, corporations have a very poor record when it comes to science that they disagree with. If we’re going to go on the weight of experts, I’m gong to win. What makes Taylor more persuasive to you than Storch? Or the majority of other climate scientists? The models are used to measure or confirm a theory or hypothesis. Many skeptics simply deny the possibility of AGW. That is what has me confused. Do people really believe you can through crap into the air and their won’t be repercussions?

            Many, if not most, skeptics don’t just ask for caution, they outright deny the science. And, in fact, deny that AGW even really exists. Their beliefs are not based on science, but are based on politics.

            As for Heartland, I think you know that only selectively quoting Storch leaves a skewed perception. It’s a form of misdirection. They didn’t misquote him, but they didn’t give the full flavor of his comments either. That’s a sign of partisanship and of a group that has already made up their minds.

            Here’s the problem.. why not take steps now? Not extreme steps… but some? What if by waiting, we wait too long? Why not cut down on emissions.. even if the science proves to be fatally flawed, there is no real downside to reducing all greenhouse gases and pollutants.

        • Eric Blair

          I notice, like many bullies, that you ran away when you got called on your BS. Must have been pretty embarrassing to realize that you were guilty, only more so, of the very things you said of me. You exaggerate, you are condescending, and think way too highly of yourself. You became all superior and snarky… and karma paid you back big time.

          This isn’t the first time, and it won’t be the last time because you don’t question yourself. You don’t learn from your mistakes, you just repeat them over and over again. At the heart of it, you are an intellectual coward and intellectually lazy. You lash out when anyone dares question you. A shame. You’re not stupid, just unwilling to question your own assumptions.

          • MrBill97702

            Not really trying to condescending or snarky. Just trying to make a point without taking up a whole bunch of space. Sorry about coming across that way.

          • Eric Blair

            I was actually responding to Jack, not you. Sorry about the confusion (you can see who I was responding to in the header).

  • Yog Soggoth

    These California types move in to our states and the first thing they want to do is take our resources and hand it over to the government. When they banned the nets conumers were forced to purchase stinky old fish from EXXON mega kill boats operating with flags of convenience with foreign workers getting slave wages, or just buy straight from China, or anywhere than here. It does not matter what resource, the plan is to use the environmentalists backed by government paid scientists to attack America. Stage 2, corporate interests already had a plan to legally steal resources before they started stage 1. We get continued pollution as before and farm raised shrimp from Vietnam with exotic tropical parasites that our doctors have never even heard of. Oh, but they will offer you a government pill solution for that as well I would imagine.

  • Everet R.

    >Scientific reports that are not statistically significant are by definition, >insignificant. They are irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.

    I’m confused as to what the author means by “statistically significant” data and reports.

    Data itself, as far as I know, cannot be statistically significant, only results derived from analyzing data can be significant or insignificant, and even this depends on the context of the particular analysis.

    Further, if by “reports that are not statistically significant” the author means scientific papers that report statistically insignificant results, this statement is a bit misleading. For instance, if I want to test if a certain medication cures small pox, and I find that the results from the group treated with the medication were not statistically significantly different from the control group’s results, I would consider this to be a report worthy of publication. It’s a relevant result because we care to know if the medication works or doesn’t work.

  • CherryAnn1000

    Excellent article, Senator. I’m very glad to see someone not caught up in all this illogical PC nonsense and speaks the truth. And the truth is the truth, no matter what anyone may think or say.

  • GROK-THOU ART GOD

    “We are being asked to assume that increasing global temperatures are the result of man caused greenhouse gas emissions.” W-(H)-E-L-L-???? As RR used to say, yes you are being a being asked to believe in something. It’s called …..the greenhouse effect. No denying it, no claiming it’s not real. Deal with it Senator Whitshet (or go back to 8th grade and pay attention this time)

    • .

      Go to the core of Mother Earth moving s before airing MBS from your oracle pot, monsewer DEMbacle.

      • SCHOOLED YOU AGAIN

        MBS?-is that Melbourne Business School? Metal building systems? Mortgagee backed securities? YOU ARE A TWIT SIR , SHOO AWAY BACK TO MOMMIES BASEMENT AS YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDABLE!! THIS SITE IS FOR PEOPLE WITH A BRAIN HAHA BYE BYE

        • .

          The best part of you ran down your mother’s legs during child birth. That said you water don’t make for any tasty chocolate either, you dis-chord.

          • grok’ schooled you, ardbeg

            Your insults are soooo middle school. Soooo middle school girl on her period that is

          • .

            Lo, gsy,a, if your IQ’s were 2 points higher, you’d quantify as rock stars at a nearby quarry.

  • Pingback: prediksi bola malam ini()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: unblock saudi arabia sites()

  • Pingback: online casinos()

  • Pingback: Direct TV vs Cable TV()

  • Pingback: Sat TV()

  • Pingback: parking()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: pay per day loans plan()

  • Pingback: water ionizer pay plan loans()

  • Pingback: get more information()

  • Pingback: find out more()

  • Pingback: locksmith denver 80247()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: electrician bucuresti sector 4()

  • Pingback: electrician tool pouch()

  • Pingback: plan()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: water ionizer payment plan()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: http://www.daviscountyutah.gov/offsite_link.cfm?location=http://goo.gl/cQU8zw()

  • Pingback: http://webkingz.camkingz.com/()

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)