The Climate Swindle

Are you worried about your carbon footprint hurting the earth? Don’t worry. Now climate doomsayers can sleep easy at night. For a fee a carbon offset provider will gladly funnel your money into earth friendly projects aimed to reduce greenhouse gases, such as planting trees in Ecuador or supporting a wind farm in Texas. But are carbon offset providers really delivering what they claim? Studies of international carbon offset schemes have revealed examples of widespread fraud and abuse. And now, investigations into two of the most prominent carbon offset providers in the U.S. have revealed that neither of them actually offers real reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Carbon offsets are defined as a reduction, removal, or avoidance of GHG emissions from a specific project that is used to compensate for GHG emissions occurring elsewhere. By purchasing a carbon offset, businesses, electric utilities, or individuals pay someone to reduce emissions elsewhere, rather than change their own behavior. Because of the relative ease and cost of offsets compared to changing behavior or business practices, carbon offsetting has spread quickly in the past few years to become a multi-million dollar industry in the United States alone.

Many environmental organizations and governments around the globe advocate statutorily restricting fossil fuel consumption and using carbon offsets via a cap-and-trade-type model to decrease overall human-emitted GHGs. This trend is born of fears of human-induced climate change, despite the lack of any statistically significant global warming since 1995.

All climate policies, such as cap-and-trade, heavily rely on using carbon offsets to cut emissions. Analysts estimated that up to 43% of emission reductions in the last proposed federal cap-and-trade legislation (the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009) would have come from offsets. That means U.S. citizens soon could be paying enormous sums for carbon offsets.

The implications are very clear. If offsets do not result in real, verifiable reductions in GHGs, then not only would billions (if not trillions) of American dollars be completely wasted, but the goals (whether they be of merit or not) of such a cap-and-trade program could not be reached. The climate policy would accomplish nothing but inflicting significant economic hardships upon recession-ridden Americans.

Cascade Policy Institute’s research has concluded that would be the case, exposing the failures by the nation’s leading carbon offset providers, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) and The Climate Trust, which undermine the entire carbon offset industry.

The two key principles of carbon offsets are additionality (i.e., a project would not be completed without carbon offset funds) and proper monitoring/verification of results. If these two principles are not met in entirety, then the offset is not a real reduction in GHG emissions, according to industry experts. Cascade’s audit of BEF and The Climate Trust projects reveal that they failed to prove additionality or to show proper monitoring or verification for all of their claimed carbon offsets.

BEF hired a third party carbon offset certifier, Green-e, to bring credibility to BEF carbon offsets, yet Green-e’s certification process does not test for additionality and fails to accurately monitor or verify emissions reductions. Likewise, The Climate Trust, and the industry generally, have failed to ensure real emissions reductions because their programs suffer from similar problems.

BEF carbon offset funds paid for projects that were already going to be built, did not reduce emissions directly or at all, and used a portion of the proceeds for watershed restoration (not for offsetting emissions). The Climate Trust projects also suffer from the same problems. The investigation revealed carbon offsets funding Native American canoe journeys, wind projects that had already been built, and passing out bicycle helmets. Accordingly, offset purchasers are not buying a real, verifiable product, though they do get to feel as though they are reducing GHGs so long as the mirage stays in place.

So long as individuals promote cap-and-trade programs (or other offset approaches) to reduce GHGs, carbon offsets should be examined carefully to make sure that consumers are getting what they pay for. Currently, consumers should not have any confidence that their purchase of carbon offsets has any effect on GHG emissions whatsoever.

The problems that plague the carbon offset concept most likely will never be solved. Even the Federal Trade Commission, which investigates cases of market deception, warns that carbon offsets carry a high risk of fraud, yet all climate policies introduced on the state and national level call for the use of carbon offsets. Although it may allow a few climate hypochondriacs to sleep well at night, billions of dollars will be wasted in projects that accomplish nothing and only serve to enrich the few companies that successfully have duped politicians into forcing citizens to purchase a bunch of hot air.


Todd Wynn is Vice President at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center. He received his bachelor’s degree in Business Economics from California State University Long Beach and his masters in International and Developmental Economics from University of San Francisco.

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

Posted by at 05:30 | Posted in Measure 37 | 35 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Could we please see a few of these people going to jail?

    Look – If I am running an electronics store chain, and I claim $10M in inventory and someone shows up and its not there, I have just committed fraud. I have over valued my company, and thereby the stock thus cheating investors. People go to jail or are heavily fined for this sort of thing daily.

    Why is it just about any goon seems to be able to set up some Carbon Offset company, rip people off and get away with it?

    There can be no reasonable claim whatsoever that handing out bicycle helmets as a carbon offset is anything but fraud.

    Yes, ha ha its funny, they took everyone’s money and just had a canoe trip or handed out helmets. We all kind of chuckle at the waste and abuse. At the end of the day the people who run these rackets are, in fact, thieves. We need to stop looking at this sort of thing as anything other than what it is, fraud and a crime.

    It’s time to get tough and close down these rackets, seize the assets involved and either fine or send to prison the con artists that run them.

    • Mary’s Opinion

      Wishful thinking that these schemes will be stopped. More likely they will significantly increase. The most honest and simplest statement in the entire article is: “By purchasing a carbon offset, business, electric utilities, or individuals pay someone else to reduce emissions elsewhere, rather than change their own behavior.” China and India have clearly stated they are building their countries and lifting them from third world status and will not participate in this. How will their manufacturing emissions be controlled or reduced? Who will pay their share? So, lets get rid of the cows in the U.S. so we don’t have milk, meat or methane gas. I get so sick of the stupidity and lack of common sense and all the folks who argue global warming and don’t have the credentials to do so. Oh! These are the people who will pay someone else so they won’t have to change their ways.

  • Bob Clark

    Because the effects on climate from man’s carbon dioxide emissions is still in the junk science phase; and the solutions like carbon offsets are even more abstract; I think the best solution is for each individual to voluntarily live their lives with a respect for the environment while also balancing economic well being. Odds are very high central planning, mandatory solutions botch it badly. This is where government’s role should be more an informational role, and hopefully a provider of accurate information. Maybe this is even too much to expect from our government.

    • valley p

      “Because the effects on climate from man’s carbon dioxide emissions is still in the junk science phase”

      Every major science organization in the US and most in the world agree that the earth is warming primarily due to an increase in greenhouse gas accumulation due to humans. Junk science? No. Reality denial Bob.

      Don’t expect those of us who already live responsibly to make up for those of you who don’t. This is a shared responsibility whether you like it or not.

      As for Rupert. Based on “Cascade Policy’s research” which can hardly be considered objective let alone tied to any legal standard, you conclude that people ought to be sent to prison? No need for an actual investigation and conviction of some crime? “Failure to prove” something to Todd’s satisfaction is a crime? You are serious? Or are you just engaging in more baseless propaganda?

      • Todd Wynn

        A deceptive trade practice is defined as an activity in which an individual or business engages that is
        calculated to mislead or lure the public into purchasing a product or service. Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act prohibits false advertising and misrepresenting the characteristics, benefits, and qualities of the product or services offered.

        BEF is misleading the public into believing that real, verifiable, and additional greenhouse
        gas reductions have occurred from a BEF Carbon Offset purchase when they have not.

        Under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, one cannot cause confusion or misunderstanding as to certification of goods or services nor can one engage in any other conduct which similarly creates the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. BEF and Green-e(the third party certifier) create the likelihood of misunderstanding of the claimed benefits of BEF Carbon Offsets. The Center for Resource Solutions and, indirectly, BEF asserts that Green-e Climate certified offsets are additional when, in fact, they are not.

        Because of this, the Oregon Attorney General should conduct a consumer fraud investigation of BEF Carbon Offsets, and offsets sold by other providers such as the Climate Trust.In addition, The Federal Trade Commission should conduct a consumer fraud investigation of BEF Carbon Offsets and the Center for Resource Solution’s Green-e Climate program.

        • valley p

          Thanks for the tutorial on deceptive trade practices. I have no stake or interest in BEF one way or the other. If they are engaged in a fraud they should be held accountable. If and when the AG investigates and presses charges, and if and when they are convicted, they should be punished. Rupert’s point was that they should be punished without these steps being taken, which is what I was responding to.

          Its clear from your past posts, and the positions of Cascade Policy, that your “investigation” can’t be considered objective, and that your campaign is to discredit global warming theory and everything associated with it, from wind turbines to electric cars to carbon offsets. So forgive me for thinking this charge you are making is just another way to cast doubt by casting stones.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >No need for an actual investigation and conviction of some crime?

            You are the guy running around saying George Bush committed treason without any investigation or conviction so please, lets have a little perspective.

            >Every major science organization in the US and most in the world agree that the earth is warming primarily due to an increase in greenhouse gas accumulation due to humans.

            Interesting statement, but of course wholly untrue.

            They do agree on warming, they do not agree that it is primarily man made.

            >Don’t expect those of us who already live responsibly to make up for those of you who don’t.

            Excuse me?

            Even you don’t believe this nonsense.

            If you do, can we all please hear from you as to why in the hell we pay taxes to support all sorts of welfare services precisely because people did not live responsibly.

            >Its clear from your past posts, and the positions of Cascade Policy, that your “investigation” can’t be considered objective

            I sure hope you aren’t going to try and claim the IPCC report or organizations such as the CRU are objective.

            You will lose in two rounds if you do.

          • valley p

            “You are the guy running around saying George Bush committed treason”

            Correction Rupert. You are the guy running around saying I said that. But I have never said that. As is so often the case you are picking an argument with your version of me.

            “They do agree on warming, they do not agree that it is primarily man made.”

            Correction number 2. They agree on both. Look up the positions of any of the following:

            * American Association for the Advancement of Science
            * American Astronomical Society
            * American Chemical Society
            * American Geophysical Union
            * American Institute of Physics
            * American Meteorological Society
            * American Physical Society
            * Australian Coral Reef Society
            * Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            * Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
            * British Antarctic Survey
            * Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
            * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            * Environmental Protection Agency
            * European Federation of Geologists
            * European Geosciences Union
            * European Physical Society
            * Federation of American Scientists
            * Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
            * Geological Society of America
            * Geological Society of Australia
            * International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
            * International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
            * National Center for Atmospheric Research
            * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            * Royal Meteorological Society
            * Royal Society of the UK

            Deal with reality Rupert. It isn’t so bad. Really.

          • Joe

            They drank the kool-aid and it is in their interest for this to be a problem. I would believe someone who received no government funding. These lying sacks of s&&t can’t be trusted to make these kinds of policy decisions or to provide information to stupid politicians to make these types of decisions. When the government has the pothole problem solved, I might listen to them on AGW issues.

      • jim karlock

        *Dean Apostle:*
        “Because the effects on climate from man’s carbon dioxide emissions is still in the junk science phase”

        Every major science organization in the US and most in the world agree that the earth is warming primarily due to an increase in greenhouse gas accumulation due to humans. Junk science? No.
        *JK:* Lets look at the one that knows best – The American Meteorological Society:
        1.) The society’s leaders fell for Gore’s lies.
        2) Survey(s) of the membership show overwhelming skepticism.

        That shows the invalidity of your claim. And by implication, all such organizations (unless they actually had a vote of the membership)

        *Dean Apostle:* Don’t expect those of us who already live responsibly to make up for those of you who don’t. This is a shared responsibility whether you like it or not.
        *JK:* Here Dean lays the groundwork for forcing other people into his religion! Dean you are no different than Stalin, Mao, Castro or Hitler, each of which had a noble purpose to dictate how others should live. Dean, you are in a fine tradition of lies, killing dissenters and executing millions for disloyalty.

        *Dean Apostle:* “Failure to prove” something to Todd’s satisfaction is a crime?
        *JK:* Glad you respect a high standard of proof. Why don’t you show us the real proof thjat man is causing GW. The best I can find was expressed by the IPCC, Hansen at OSU and Phil Jones to the BBC:
        CRU Head, Dr. Jones: The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D. (Read the whole interview at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)

        That’s it! The best case the warmers have is simply laughable and can be summed up as:

        We know that the, not unusual, recent warming which stopped in 1995 and has reversed since 2002 was man caused because (applying flat earth logic) *we can’t figure out an alternative explanation.*

        Laughable Dean, just laughable!

        Do you have any better case to make, or did you get sucked in by the Al Gore, his flat earthers and the tobacco company apologists?

        ”Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco,” he told an audience in North Carolina. ”I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.” AL GORE, NYT, August 30, 1996 http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/30/us/gore-forced-to-make-hard-choices-on-tobacco.html?pagewanted=1

        Thanks
        JK

        • valley p

          From the AMS web site, the official position of the organization on global warming is summed up below:

          Despite the uncertainties noted above, *there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond* .

          That shows the validity of my claim. Try harder Jim.

          “Here Dean lays the groundwork for forcing other people into his religion!”

          I’m an agnostic. I have no religion. I just pointed out that my position is based on what the science has concluded.

          • jim karlock

            *Dean Apostle:* From the AMS web site, the official position of the organization on global warming is summed up below:
            ….
            That shows the validity of my claim. Try harder Jim.
            *JK:* Please learn to read.
            My claim was that the position of many of these groups DOES NOT reflect the membership and I used the AMS as a prime example because an actual census was done of their membership that found just the opposite of the “official position”. This does not surprise any well informed person as these positions are often formed without consulting the membership.

            *Dean Apostle:* “Here Dean lays the groundwork for forcing other people into his religion!”
            I’m an agnostic. I have no religion. I just pointed out that my position is based on what the science has concluded.
            *JK:* Wrong. The science has conclude no such thing. A few politized scientists have committed a series of crimes and malfeasance to foster a batch of lies on the world. Anyone with a half way open mind sees this after the CRU emails. Some intelligent people saw this years age. For instance see: http://robkremer.blogspot.com/2009/12/decade-of-global-warming-propaganda.html

            People, like you, who believe AGW on such crappy evidence are believing in a religion. Worse yet, you want to force others to conform to your AGW religion by changing their life style to conform to your nutty beliefs. That is a dictatorial attitude that, when the government gets involved, has historically gotten millions killed. See Lysenko for a prime example and not too bad an analog. He even got dissents killed, like some of your ilk are now hinting at.

            Just for the record, why don’t you tell us what is the actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming. If you cannot do that, you cannot justify changes in man’s CO2 producing activities and you are admitting that your belief is a religion, not science.

            Thanks
            JK

  • valley p

    “My claim was that the position of many of these groups DOES NOT reflect the membership ”

    Right, that is your “claim.” And if your claim is true, given that this is the most critical issue facing the membership, then they should change the leadership and adopt your position. If and when they do you can validate your claim. Until then, the AMS is clearly on record supporting AGW as scientific fact, and it is the AMS that represents the meteorological profession, not you.

    “A few politized scientists have committed a series of crimes and malfeasance to foster a batch of lies on the world.”

    Apparently every major scientific organization on the planet is in on the crime, which means we need to immediately arrest nearly every scientist in the world. You should get busy with a citizens arrest warrant and stop wasting valuable time here.

    “People, like you, who believe AGW on such crappy evidence are believing in a religion.”

    No, we follow the science. Period. You thinking that you know more than the worlds climate scientists is delusional if not theological. Let me put it this way Jim. People like me, non scientists, can either believe what the scientists are telling us about physical reality or we can believe what Jim Karlock and Rupert from Springfield are telling us about reality. Let’s see….world’s climate scientists…..Jim and Rupert. Scientists…..Jim and Rupert. OK, I’ve thought about it. I’ll go with the scientists. And I make this choice not knowing what if any religion they or you 2 belong to.

    “Just for the record, why don’t you tell us what is the actual evidence…”

    Read the IPCC reports. Or if you don’t like those then read the scientific journals. Or the many books on the subject. Its all there in black and white or digital form. Using your own words from a previous post, don’t expect me to do your research for you.

    • jim karlock

      *Dean Apostle:*
      “Just for the record, why don’t you tell us what is the actual evidence…”

      Read the IPCC reports. Or if you don’t like those then read the scientific journals.
      *JK:* In other words, you have never found any real evidence but you believe anyway. Or
      your paymaster forbids you from discussing the evidence because there is none.

      *Lets be clear*
      There is an organized campaign of paid bloggers who are paid to keep up the AGW lie. They never discuss the evidence because they tend to be scientifically and logically challenged. Typically they have never looked at the evidence anyway, instead they just trust stars like Al Gore (an admitted liar and profiteer) or some illiterate creep from Hollywood.

      What you saw above is right out of their play book – make vague allusions to tons of evidence, journals or the (now discredited) IPCC report. But they never can come up with a specific citation to real evidence because there is NONE. The best I’ve seen is the flat earth logic claim that it must be man’s CO2 because we cant find another cause (as if they know all the possibilities in order to dismiss them!)

      So at this point you know you are dealing with either a paid shill or a true believer who has nothing but feelings to go on. For all practical purposes this is a religion for him. And he a religious zealot because he is actively trying to use the power of government to force his religious beliefs on others (at gun point if needed.) He is a very dangerous person who must be confronted whenever he tries to spread his gospel.

      *Dean Apostle:* Using your own words from a previous post, don’t expect me to do your research for you.
      *JK:* Not my words (”don’t expect me to do your research”). Please try to do the most basic research before putting words in my mouth. Of course I don’t expect more from someone who has never bothered to look to see if there is any evidence behind AGW.

      Thanks
      JK

      • valley p

        “In other words, you have never found any real evidence”

        Correct. I rely on the evidence gathered and synthesized by the experts, which does not include Al Gore by the way. I don’t go around gathering global warming evidence, nor do I gather evidence for the big bang, string theory, fungal ecology, neurology, or evolution. I rely on those who have the expertise and have dedicated their professional lives to doing that work, and I learn from them. You should try it. It might keep your head from exploding.

        “Or your paymaster forbids you…”

        Uh oh. What paymaster would that be? Where can I sign up? Am I really that good? Send me links.

        “Of course I don’t expect more from someone who has never bothered to look to see if there is any evidence behind AGW.”

        Have I collected carbon bubbles? No. I’ve read the IPCC summary. I’ve read books and papers by actual experts. Its just denying reality to assume that every scientific organization in the world is part of a hoax or scam.

        Bottom line Jim, you are engaged in politics, not science. You think you can outsmart science by finding knowledge holes or nasty grams here and there, but you are engaged in a fools errand. Its you and Rupert arguing against science and you can’t possibly win because reality is what it is. It took the Catholic church a few hundred years to reconcile the fact that the earth was not the center of the universe, which they had to deny because it disrupted their world view. Your world view is getting disrupted by global warming, and you can’t deal with it.

        • jim karlock

          *Dean Apostle:*
          “In other words, you have never found any real evidence”

          Correct. I rely on the evidence gathered and synthesized by the experts,

          *JK:* Wow, 277 words and you can’t even tells why you believe, except to rely on the “experts” like the Germans relied on the experts in the 1930s or the experts that used to believe the earth was flat or the experts that believed in Eugenics or experts that told us to shut down industrial society to stop the coming ice age.

          You are doing something very dangerous: letting others think for you. You probably haven’t realized that most of those so called experts are doing the same thing and have never actually sought real evidence. Remember evidence of man causing AGW is NOT observations of a warming climate or of polar bears or of melting ice. Evidence is ONLY a casual link between man’s CO2 emission and climate. No one has shown this link.

          I urge you to question authority. Verify for yourself that they are telling you the truth. Once you do that you will realize that most of them are just assuming cause from co-incidence. You will also discover that some of the experts have openly admitted lying and some are getting paid for their beliefs.

          I’ll be you also got suckered by the “oil company supported deniers” lie? Did you know that the CRU, the basis of the IPCC, got oil company money?

          Why don’t you try to find better evidence than “we cant think of anything else” to support you belief? (You can’t – only a bunch of co-incidents that aren’t even as good as the solar-climate connection.)

          Thanks
          JK

          • valley p

            “You are doing something very dangerous: letting others think for you.”

            No. My thoughts are my very own. As an educated person, I know I can’t know everything about everything, so I rely on people who know more about specific things. I let the body of scientists do their work and vet truth from fiction through an objective truth seeking process that has stood the test of time. The idea that I would go out and do my own original climate research, not to mention research on every other issue under the sun, is ludicrous. Your own skepticism Jim, is fed by the research or analysis of others. I have seen you quote Singer and other climate skeptics over and again, so don’t pretend you don’t draw on their research and analysis, such as it is.

            “Evidence is ONLY a casual link between man’s CO2 emission and climate. No one has shown this link.”

            Its been shown time and again. The relationship between CO2 and warming is a function of physics. Other possible factors have been tested and ruled out. The entire world body of climate scientists has debated this. Their certainty level is above 95%. That is good enough for me.

            “I urge you to question authority. ”

            Thanks, but I’ve led my entire life doing that. Climate scientists are not “authority” in the sense that they are in charge. They are experts at what they do. When they come to a conclusion about something based on the evidence at hand, it is foolish o dismiss them. If a doctor diagnosis you with cancer, do you say no way? I’m going to run my own tests? Buy my own diagnostic tools? I hope not. Maybe you get a 2nd or 3rd opinion, and if they tell you the same thing, are you going to think they are all engaged in a conspiracy to sell you cancer drugs? That is clinical paranoia, not healthy skepticism.

            “Verify for yourself that they are telling you the truth. ”

            The peer review process does that. You either accept that this process, flawed though it is, is the best chance we have for figuring out physical phenomena or you don’t. And if you don’t you have bupkess. You might as well consult a witch doctor.

            “I’ll be you also got suckered by the “oil company supported deniers” lie? Did you know that the CRU, the basis of the IPCC, got oil company money? ”

            So what if they did? Scientists take money from wherever they can get it to do research. How would oil company money influence them to skew their analysis towards findings that suggest we should use less oil? You are not making any sense at all. They would have found the other way, as your ‘experts” have done after taking Exxon or Koch brothers money.

            I’m picturing you and Rupert out there taking atmospheric carbon samples, measuring ocean temperatures and acidity, tracking polar bears, studying glaciers and the density of the antarctic ice sheet. I’ll chip in $50 for your travel or lab costs. Report back with your findings ok?

          • jim karlock

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “Evidence is ONLY a casual link between man’s CO2 emission and climate. No one has shown this link.”

            Its been shown time and again.
            *JK:* Then show us this evidence instead of merely claiming that it exists. Hint: you can’t because it hasn’t ben shown. Prove me wrong with real evidence!

            *Dean Apostle:* The relationship between CO2 and warming is a function of physics.
            *JK:* Show us the evidence that this has been proven in the real atmosphere, not merely in a small scale lab experiment. Also note that this shows nothing about wether or not man has caused the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

            *Dean Apostle:* Other possible factors have been tested and ruled out.
            *JK:* Show us the evidence that they have ruled out all possible factors *including those they do not know about.* (They DID NOT rule out cosmic rays or non thermal solar radiation and assumed that the temperature measurements were correct.)

            *Dean Apostle:* The entire world body of climate scientists has debated this.
            *JK:* Please show us the evidence that this debate (about man’s CO2 being the cause of dangerous warming )actually occurred among scientists as opposed to loud mouthed politicians and their profiteering cronies.

            *Dean Apostle:* Their certainty level is above 95%. That is good enough for me.
            *JK:* Where is the evidence for this claim? (I hope you are not going to try to use the discredited IPCC report.)

            The fact is that when you look behind your assertions, there is NO EVIDENCE.

            If there is, show it, or quit trying to rule the world.

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “I urge you to question authority. ”

            Thanks, but I’ve led my entire life doing that.
            *JK:* I hope you were not as wrong about other things as you are about AGW. But you did fall for the crackpot claims about density and transit and the whole new urbanism crap.

            *Dean Apostle:* Climate scientists are not “authority” in the sense that they are in charge. They are experts at what they do. When they come to a conclusion about something based on the evidence at hand, it is foolish o dismiss them.
            *JK:* Again, where is the evidence that climate scientists (aside from the small band of criminals at the CRU and their buddies Hansen & Gaven at NASA and Mann’s hockey stick fabrication, and Schneider, editor of a peer reviewed journal saying it is OK to lie to the public, etc.) concluded that man is causing dangerous warming?

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “Verify for yourself that they are telling you the truth. ”

            The peer review process does that.
            *JK:*
            Laughable!! The CRU criminals blocked the publication of opposing papers and reviewed each other’s papers. You are also ignoring the Wagmen report where he showed this a couple years ago – the emails just proved what he concluded from looking at data.

            *Dean Apostle:*
            I’m picturing you and Rupert out there taking atmospheric carbon samples,
            *JK:* Here you are starting to show the basis of your belief and your complete lack of logic. I’ll address each of your suggestions individually:

            *Dean Apostle:* measuring ocean temperatures and acidity,
            *JK:* Ocean temperatures have quit rising after we got a good measurement system in place. That you mention ocean temperatures show how little you know about the subject. Further rising temperatures mean nothing without proof of the link to man’s CO2 (which does not exist.)

            *Dean Apostle:* tracking polar bears,
            *JK:* Polar bear populations are increasing. They did just fine in during the previous warm spells which were warmer than today. Again you show your lack of knowledge of the real world. Further polar bear populations mean nothing without proof of the link to man’s CO2 (and a link to temperature) (which does not exist.)

            *Dean Apostle:* studying glaciers and
            *JK:* At least there is evidence that some glaciers are retreating. Just like they have been since the little ice age BEFORE man’s major CO2 emission increase. SO again you show you lack of knowledge and now your lack of reasoning power. You also commit the error of assuming man is the cause of some random earth change. Please prove it is man’s CO2 emissions that are building up in the atmosphere (and not some other, perhaps unknown, source of old carbon) AND that they caused the glacier’s retreat.

            Also note that the IPCC lied about the himalayan glaciers and has now withdrawn that claim. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

            *Dean Apostle:* the density of the antarctic ice sheet.
            *JK:* It is well known that the total antarctic ice is increasing. Only a paper or two from the climate criminals at the CRU claim otherwise. Further, ice changes mean nothing without proof of the link to man’s CO2 (which does not exist.)

            Thanks
            JK

          • valley p

            “Then show us this evidence instead of merely claiming that it exists.”

            The evidence is spelled out and referenced in the IPCC report. It exists in all the documents by all the scientists you choose to not believe. Your denial of its existence does not mean it doesn’t exist. I could point to the moon and say “see?” and you would say “What moon? I don’t see any moon, That could be a big light bulb someone hung out there to fool me. I don’t trust these so called experts who say they flew to the so called moon! Prove its a moon!”

            So Jim…go to the moon yourself. Build your own spaceship, get some rocket fuel, and aim high.

            “Show us the evidence that they have ruled out *all possible factors* …”

            Well I have to admit you have a point there. They may have not ruled out *millions of invisible unicorns* running around working up a sweat and pooping all over the place. Have you ever seen the steam that comes out of unicorn poop. Serious steam man. There are probably lots of things they failed to consider.

            “Please show us the evidence that this debate (about man’s CO2 being the cause of dangerous warming )actually occurred among scientists ”

            See list of scientific organizations who back the theory. Read their statements. Do a literature review. Drink less caffiene.

            “The CRU criminals blocked the publication of opposing papers…”

            Correction. They tried unsuccessfully to block the publication of I think 1 paper. Note…unsuccessfully. Meaning it was published. And later shown to be wrong in its conclusions, which is why they tried to block it in the first place.

            “Where is the evidence for this claim? ”

            IPCC report. Statements of nearly every major science organization in world. Literature review. Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash rinse, repeat. Danger Will Robinson. Danger. Nonsensical arguments approaching!

            “Ocean temperatures have quit rising after we got a good measurement system in place.”

            Who is this “we?” You and Rupert? You have been measuring ocean temperatures? Very impressive Jimbo. How long have you been at this? Have you published your findings?

            “Polar bear populations are increasing. ”

            Based on what data? Did you go out and take a survey? Or are you saying you believe someone elses data? I thought you did not trust other peoples data and warned against me doing so? Now I am confused.

            “At least there is evidence that some glaciers are retreating.”

            What evidence? From the same scientists you distrust? Why do you believe this one bit? Couldn’t they have phonied up the photographs? It would be childs’ play for diabolical scientists to do that no? I can’t believe you fell for the phony glacier photo retreating thingie! Hah! Got ya!

            “Also note that the IPCC lied about the himalayan glaciers…”

            No, they did not “lie.” They relied on a non peer reviewed report. They have now corrected the error. That is what actual scientists do. They correct their errors and move on.

            “It is well known that the total antarctic ice is increasing. ”

            Well known? Known by whom? Evil, lying scientists? Again, did you do these measurements yourself? If not, how can you be so sure? Are you sure there even IS an Antarctica? Have you actually BEEN there? Have you ever seen a penguin outside of the zoo? Are you sure those penguins were not little kids in tuxedos and masks who happened to like raw fish? Maybe Norwegian kids? Man you sure are gullible! We got you with the Norwegian kids as penguins from a non existent continent trick and you fell for it! LOL!

            Now that I think of it, how do we even know there IS such a thing as CO2? I’ll bet they just made that up. I mean, have you ever actually SEEN CO2? I didn’t think so. Neither have I. Hah! We’ve got them by the short hairs now don’t we? They can’t PROVE there is CO2 at all! And even if they did….so what? They can’t prove there is more of it than there used to be. Or that it is “harmful.” Hah! How dumb do they think we are anyway?

            I’m going to go an burn a lump of coal now. I feel so much better!

          • jim karlock

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “Then show us this evidence instead of merely claiming that it exists.”

            The evidence is spelled out and referenced in the IPCC report.
            … It exists in all the documents by all the scientists you choose to not believe.
            *JK:*
            If it is so clear, why can’t you point to it. Just one irrefutable proof will do. There is none as you show by refusing to show it.

            Let me help you by pointing out the closest they come: (Link per David Appell):
            See IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs), http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp
            The argument there is simply we can’t figure out anything else.
            Amazingly that’s the best they (any YOU) have!

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “Show us the evidence that they have ruled out all possible factors …”

            Well I have to admit you have a point there. They may have not ruled out millions of invisible unicorns running around working up a sweat and pooping all over the place. Have you ever seen the steam that comes out of unicorn poop. Serious steam man. There are probably lots of things they failed to consider.
            *JK:* I see you now admit that they could not rule out all other factors by your making a joke. But, it is no joking matter – the whole future of our way of life hinges on this question.

            *Dean Apostle:*
            IPCC report. Statements of nearly every major science organization in world. Literature review. Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash rinse, repeat. Danger Will Robinson. Danger. Nonsensical arguments approaching!
            *JK:* Again you cannot come up with evidence. Quit the BS and actually look for the real evidence – it doesn’t exist. Also quit repeating that BS about all those organizations – they all ignore their membership on such matters as the census of the AMS members exemplifies.

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “Ocean temperatures have quit rising after we got a good measurement system in place.”

            Who is this “we?” You and Rupert? You have been measuring ocean temperatures? Very impressive Jimbo. How long have you been at this? Have you published your findings?
            *JK:* We is the country we live in. The USA established a world wide network of buoys to measure ocean temperature. They find NO increase. You are proven wrong. You need to actually look at the data, not just rely on Sierra Klub fundraising letters for you science.

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “Also note that the IPCC lied about the himalayan glaciers…”

            No, they did not “lie.” They relied on a non peer reviewed report. They have now corrected the error. That is what actual scientists do. They correct their errors and move on.
            *JK:* Actual scientists do not claim that all of a report is peer-reviewed, then include green corporate propaganda as a credible source. It was no mistake because there are dozens of instances of it in the IPCC report.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Joe

            Hey JK, where do they go to get their credibility back? They can skip my house.

          • valley p

            So based on your responses, I’m to conclude you and Rupert have not done any original field research on climate change or lack thereof? Hmmn.

            “If it is so clear, why can’t you point to it.”

            Picture me pointing to the IPCC report and its references. Picture that. An index finger pointing to that report. A wagging index finger on the end of a gesturing arm. Now go read it. Evidence. mounting piles of it. Temperature records. CO2 records. Predictive models. Melting glaciers. Rising ocean acidity. Early animal migrations. Read it and just for a moment assume the scientists who have compiled this are being truthful. That they did not all meet secretly in a limestone cave in France to plot the socialistic overthrow of your way of life. Then report back.

            “I see you now admit that they could not rule out all other factors by your making a joke. ”

            Joke? It wasn’t a joke. It is certainly within the realm of possibility. My kid swears he saw unicorns when he was 6. And dragons. Lots of dragons. Imagine the heat (and warm slimy bugers) coming out of those dragon nostrils. Could be we had a dragon population explosion over the last 30 years. That would explain things. Or do you think you can prove to me there are no invisible unicorns or dragons that can only be seen by 6 year olds? HAH! I didn’t think so.

            “the whole future of our way of life hinges on this question.”

            Yes. Our whole way of life. If we have to drive a hybrid or electric car (and remember to plug it in at night) instead of a gas guzzler, that would simply ruin our way of life. Biking to work and shrinking our waistlines? Un-American. If when we flip a switch and our lights go on via electrons produced by solar panels on our roof or wave buoys instead of the Boardman coal plant, how can we possibly cope? If we only eat tomatoes in season, what a tragedy! I say resist! Arm yourselves! Lock and load!

            On the other hand, an 5-8 degree average temp rise in 100 years? It would save us mucho dinero on sweaters and fleece. So skiers would be impacted by only having a 2 week season. Maybe a few farmers would lose their crops. So what if the southwest becomes a dust bowl and the tropics uninhabitable? Maybe a few hundreds of millions of people would have to relocate away from coastal areas, and we can always use more poor Bangladeshee neighbors. But what’s the big deal? People have ruined many ecosystems in the past and hey….we survived. We just picked up and moved, like my Greek ancestors after all their topsoil washed into the sea. Tea Party on dudes!

            “Again you cannot come up with evidence.”

            Me pointing. Gesturing. Jumping up and down. Shouting even. READ THE LITERATURE!

            “The USA established a world wide network of buoys to measure ocean temperature. ”

            Wait a minute. You are telling me you believe data coming from GOVERNMENT OWNED and OPERATED BUOYS? Are you serious? How naive can you be? Isn’t this the SAME GOVERNMENT that is telling us the earth is warming and we had better get busy with those solar collectors? The SAME GOVERNMENT that tells us BARAK HUSSEIN OBMAMA was born in the United States? And you BELIEVE them? Boy are you nuts Jim. Beyond help I would say.

            By the way, I noticed you completely dodged the Antarctica question. Clearly you can’t even prove to me beyond doubt that Antarctica exists. You’ve never even been there. So why should I believe anything else you tell me?

          • jim karlock

            *Dean Apostle:* I’m to conclude you and Rupert …
            Picture me pointing to the IPCC report and its references. …
            *JK:* You still refuse to point to any evidence, just big reports with lots of observations and NO link to man’s CO2.

            *Dean Apostle:* Evidence. mounting piles of it. Temperature records. CO2 records. Predictive models. Melting glaciers. Rising ocean acidity. Early animal migrations.
            *JK:* None of that is evidence that man has anything to do with it. All of those things have happened many times before without man’s influence. That you consider them evidence of man’s influence just shows your lack of reasoning power.

            *Dean Apostle:* Yes. Our whole way of life. If we have to drive a hybrid or electric car (and remember to plug it in at night) instead of a gas guzzler,
            *JK:* Since when are practical electric cars available for $10,000 like gas cars? Or do you expect people to pay $30-100k for a car and let their kids starve?

            *Dean Apostle:* If when we flip a switch and our lights go on via electrons produced by solar panels on our roof or wave buoys instead of the Boardman coal plant, how can we possibly cope?
            *JK:* Here you DO EXPECT people to come up with 5-10 times their current electric cost. (And don’t try to pawn off subsidized cost as the real cost – someone has to pay.)

            *Dean Apostle:* If we only eat tomatoes in season, what a tragedy! I say resist! Arm yourselves! Lock and load!
            *JK:* Here you show your lack of respect for people’s wants. Other people should live as you tell them to live.

            *Dean Apostle:* On the other hand, an 5-8 degree average temp rise in 100 years? It would save us mucho dinero on sweaters and fleece. So skiers would be impacted by only having a 2 week season.
            *JK:* Here you are showing off you total ignorance of current events:
            1. The leading climate scientist admits the world stopped warming in 1995.
            2. The leading climate scientist admits the world has been cooling since 2002.
            3. The leading climate scientist admits that the best evidence we have for man’s being the cause of the recent warming is that we can’t figure out an alternative.
            4. There is increasing evidence that the recent warming is in error and likely another fabrication of the climate criminals at the CRU and their buddies. For instance see “Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/direct-evidence-that-most-u-s-warming-since-1973-could-be-spurious/

            You may also want to see the magnitude of the “adjustments” (some would say tampering) that NOAA makes to the temperature record (the un adjusted data shows NO warming – see bottom chart) see: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/data_adjustments.html

            *Dean Apostle:* Maybe a few farmers would lose their crops. So what if the southwest becomes a dust bowl
            *JK:* Happened just 80 years ago, BEFORE man’s alleged influence on climate.

            *Dean Apostle:* and the tropics uninhabitable?
            *JK:* Here you show your ignorance again. The warming is mainly OUTSIDE of the tropics and at night.

            *Dean Apostle:* Maybe a few hundreds of millions of people would have to relocate away from coastal areas.
            *JK:* Only if you use the largest, least probable IPCC forecast. And even their moderate forcast has been shown to be greatly exxagerated.

            *Dean Apostle:* Tea Party on dudes!
            *JK:* More attack the messenger instead of providing evidence.

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “Again you cannot come up with evidence.”

            Me pointing. Gesturing. Jumping up and down. Shouting even. READ THE LITERATURE!
            *JK:* You still refuse to provide evidence of man’s causing dangerous climate change, You only point to evidence that climate still changes as it has for billions of years. Apparently you are so wrapped up in your religion, that you cannot tell the difference.

            *Dean Apostle:*
            “The USA established a world wide network of buoys to measure ocean temperature. ”

            Wait a minute. You are telling me you believe data coming from GOVERNMENT OWNED and OPERATED BUOYS? Are you serious? How naive can you be? Isn’t this the SAME GOVERNMENT that is telling us the earth is warming and we had better get busy with those solar collectors? The SAME GOVERNMENT that tells us BARAK HUSSEIN OBMAMA was born in the United States? And you BELIEVE them? Boy are you nuts Jim. Beyond help I would say
            *JK:* I take it you grudgingly admit the ocean is not warming since we got the system of buoys up and running to provide accurate measurements.

            Thanks
            JK

          • valley p

            “Or do you expect people to pay $30-100k for a car and let their kids starve?”

            Let me think about that a moment. Someone who pays $30K for a car is going to let his or her kids starve to death? That is how you see our choices?

            Well fear not. The current list price on a Smart car is only $16K. So you could buy one and still feed at least one of your kids.

            “The warming is mainly OUTSIDE of the tropics and at night.”

            What warming? I thought the CRU and Hansen were lying about warming. Which is it Jimbo? You now accept their temperature data?

            “Other people should live as you tell them to live.”

            Other people should be free to do as they please, but should pay a price for their pollution. That is economics 101.

            “I take it you grudgingly admit the ocean is not warming since we got the system of buoys up and running to provide accurate measurements.”

            Here is what you should take Jim. You pick and choose whatever evidence supports your pre existing conclusion. You ignore whatever evidence suggests otherwise. You believe a scientist one day and disbelieve the same scientist the next. You mistrust government one day and trust them the next when they say something that fits your bias. You cherry pick. And you do all this pretending to yourself and others that you somehow know more than the very scientists you believe and disbelieve at random.

            You are delusional. Interesting, but not well anchored to reality.

          • jim karlock

            We are still waiting for your evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming.

            You have spent hundreds or words avoiding the evidence.

            That pretty much proves that YOU have NOT EVIDENCE.

            Thanks
            JK

          • valley p

            You are right Jim I have no evidence. The scientists have the evidence. What don’t you get about that?

            Now for the last time. What evidence do you have that Antarctica exists?

          • jim karlock

            And my point is that those scientists don’t have the evidence.

            The ones that are the most vocal are getting millions in research money and many have been shown to be hiding the data, manipulating the data and committing crimes as revealed by their own words in the CRU emails.

            Their major publication, the IPCC reports, have been shown to be a political, not scientific.

            And far too many scientists are just like you — too lazy to actually look to see what the evidence is.

            It is good to see you finally admit that you cannot find any evidence and that you are just believing what you are told. That makes it religious for you.

            So please quit trying to shove YOUR religion down our throats. If you want to control others, go to Cuba and buddy up to your brother in thought Castro or to North Korea.

            Thanks
            JK

          • valley p

            “And my point is that those scientists don’t have the evidence.”

            Well the world’s scientists apparently disagree with you. They have enough evidence to satisfy every major scientific body in existence. I’ll go with them, thanks anyway.

            “That makes it religious for you.”

            No for reasons stated. Its the opposite of religion. Its “belief” in science. And in order to believe in science, one must believe that scientists, imperfect and human though they are, usually manage to uncover reality.

            “So please quit trying to shove YOUR religion down our throats.”

            Since I don’t have one that is easy to comply with. Consider it done.

            “If you want to control others, go to Cuba and buddy up to your brother in thought Castro or to North Korea.”

            Now there is an interesting idea. Since communists are by definition anti religion, and I am agnostic, I suppose you could make a connect that I have something in common with the only 2 remaining communists on earth. However, since you just accused me of being religious, you have contradicted your key point, and I must have nothing to do with confirmed atheists.

            You just can’t help contradicting yourself. You don’t believe scientists until you do. You don’t trust government data until you do. You are skeptical about everything but accept “facts” you don’t have any first hand experience with. And now you want to lump religious zealots and communists together.

          • jim karlock

            Here is a nice example of an outright lie in the IPCC report. It is a lie by cherry picking data and is quite obvious:

            Here is the explanation and IPCC chart:
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/the-new-math-ipcc-version/#more-18382

            That is the quality of “evidence” you are relying on.

            Thanks
            JK

          • jim karlock

            Here is a nice history of climate from the late 1800’s in an easy to understand form. Note that the winter months show more variation than summer, negating all of the “well boil in the hot summer” claims of profiteers like Gore. Looks like any warming that might have occurred is in the form of warmer winters. And we all know that cold kills more people than heat don’t we?

            Of course these temperature records include heat island effects, so the actual temperature increase is probably ½ of that shown. And with only ½ of the claimed warming, CO2 is not “required” to explain the, now non-existent, difference.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-graphs/#more-18419

            Thanks
            JK

  • Anonymous

    The very least dean et al should have done is check out the local connections and grasp how phony and contrived Jane Lubchenco’s work at OSU was when she fabricated thye link between Oregon’s ocean dead zones and AGW.
    She got that made up scieince circulated so much it became established science and now people like David Appell link to stories reporting her claim as he’s providing proof of the link.
    And fools like Bill Bradbury have since added that farce to his arsenal of lies.

    What clowns.

    Dean and David have nothing but the stuff of the Lubchenco’s who have raked in countless millions for more study of their science by pondering.

  • catsteece

    http://smokefreearizona.us/female-enhancement/buy-generic-viagra-usa.html buy generic viagra usa
    [url=http://smokefreearizona.us/patches-new/compare-acai-berry-products.html]compare acai berry products[/url]
    drug called aricept

  • Anonymous

    test

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)