Drastic Measures Flunk the Common Sense Test

By Anthony Stinton

Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change has intensified the calls for drastic measures in the United States and abroad to suppress carbon emissions and to slow what he and others call “global warming.” His supporters propose a litany of taxes and regulations to achieve this end. But before governments reach into taxpayers’ wallets to fund these proposals, they should consider a few common-sense conditions necessary for Gore’s costly proposals to make sense.

The first and most obvious condition requires evidence the climate is actually changing. This may be widely accepted, but it is important to note that the climate has changed constantly since prehistory.

If the climate is actually changing, we reach the second condition: For any government action to be productive, human carbon emissions must cause global warming. According to Gore’s scientific supporters, this link is proven fact. However, these scientists have yet to produce a model which accurately uses carbon emissions to explain past temperature variation. Considering carbon emissions as the control knob on the global thermostat when current science is unable to use carbon emissions even to accurately model past climates is irresponsible public policy.

Third, even if scientists eventually establish the causal link between carbon emissions and warming, government involvement is not justified unless the change is proven to be for the worse. The global climate is an incredibly complex system, and any change may make the world a more hospitable or less hospitable place. Some places will benefit, others will suffer. But the idea that halting climate change is in all ways preferable rests on the dubious condition that the global thermostat is currently set just right.

Fourth, even if bright scientists can show that the coming human-caused warming will have significant net negative effects, action is only justified if that action has a good chance of stopping the change. This is often not the case.

Oregon recently set state carbon reduction targets and plans to embark on an ambitious and expensive plan to build power plants that emit zero carbon. Even if limiting carbon emissions is the way to turn down the global thermostat, Oregon’s carbon emissions are only a tiny fraction of the global total. Oregon’s actions will be expensive — but meaningless — gestures without an effective global carbon control regime. Assembling such a regime is a Herculean task that would require us to ask the developing world to forego the same technologies that brought the developed world into the industrial age. We should be morally uncomfortable making this request unless gains are certain and large.

Even if Gore could solve the collective action problems and orchestrate a global reduction in carbon emissions to prevent any harmful climate change, it still may not be the wisest move. The costs of preventing climate change may be many orders of magnitude greater than the costs of adapting to climate change.

Two frequently cited negative effects of climate change are higher sea levels and the spread of tropical diseases like malaria. If these problems actually materialize, building levies and buying DDT and malaria nets are likely to be much, much cheaper than forcing the wholesale abandonment of energy sources that have powered human progress since the Industrial Revolution.

This discussion of cost also sets aside the fact that there are finite resources for any social program spending. Spending to prevent global warming may divert funding from other programs like HIV prevention, sanitation or vaccinations which yield much higher tangible reward for each dollar spent.

Calls to action to prevent climate change are an updated and equally flawed version of political economist Friedrich Hayek’s “fatal conceit.” The term describes the arrogance of socialists who thought that, with enough power in the hands of the right planners, men could engineer planned economies to greater prosperity than the supposed chaos of the free market. But every locale in which the planners tried their system ended up in despair — hence a “fatal” conceit. Planners could not even plan tiny Cuba out of abject poverty.

Today, we see planners like Al Gore promise that, with enough money and power, they can optimize an even more complex system: our climate. If planners could not get Cuba’s economy right, I do not think we should trust or fund big government’s efforts to control our weather.

Anthony Stinton is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s premier free market public policy think tank. He is also a candidate for a master’s degree in public policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 53 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    Right on. To trust these morons with anything makes no sense, but certainly not with attempts to tinker with the climate at the expense of grinding our economy (or what’s left of it) to a halt.

    ALGore is nuts anyway. Who would listen to him if not for the media’s fawning attention to his bloviating and the media’s willingness to let anything he says go unchallenged??

    Last I noticed most of the US was having record snowfall, ice storms, VERY cold weather indeed!

    Where is the global warming when we need it?

  • John Fairplay

    My most fervent wish is that people no longer be allowed to lie publicly about issues like global warming. When evidence cuts against them, they should have to acknowledge that. For instance, the warmest year in the last 100 was in the 1930s. It was still much cooler then decades in the Middle Ages – long before human carbon emissions.

    The warmest year in the last 25 was 1998. The earth has, apparently, been cooling for 10 years. Acknowledging facts such as these destroys (one of) Gore’s sources of income. Since humans have not yet limited carbon emissions, this fact alone blows the human-caused global warming theory straight to hell.

  • Anonymous

    What can be done? The first objection would be the limit to free speech. Whatever would be done would have to go around that because no matter how bad a liar a person is, they still have that right. For every action, however, there is a reaction. Once that lie is out there and the reaction happens, it would be necessary to take action against the reaction. Sorry, I don’t have any answers, wish I did because there must be an accounting.

  • dean

    1) Gore and others don’t call it “global warming”. Most climate scientists who spend their lives studying the issue call it global “climate change.” It is bigger than the general warming that, yes, is indeed happening.

    2) The “costly proposals” are not that costly & are not “Gores”. There are a range of proposals being debated at international, national, state, and local levels. Some cost a bit, some save as much as they cost by reducing energy consumption. Portland has been implementing carbon reduction strategies since 1990 and the economy has been booming. For example, Berkley CA just passed a measure to sell bonds and provide loans to every building owner in the city who opts for a solar energy system. The loan is paid back by a monthly utility fee that is estimated to cost less than the energy that is saved. Thus, no net cost to anyone. Higher mileage standards for cars will save a lot of carbon at virtually no cost to consumers EXCEPT that most will be buying lighter weight vehicles.

    3) “If the climate is actualy changing.” Sorry folks. Its been established. And greenhouse gases are the main cause. How do scientists “know” this? By measureing temperatures and by computer modeling to determine causation. The models take account of “natural” causes of warming, and allow isolation of greenhouse gases to see what their role is. Basic physics allow scientists to determine how much carbon is having how much impact.

    4) We have to “prove” that climate change is bad before we act? Why not just wait until we have to relocate overy major city on our east coast? No one can “prove” anything in advance. We can estimate impacts, and they are scary enough to not waste time waiting.

    5) We do have a good and affordable chance of slowing the rate of warming and holding the total change to 3.5 degrees F based on present analysis.

    6) “Oregon’s carbon savings will only be a fraction of what is needed? Why not say exactly the same for Washington, California. Denmark, Germany, China and so forth. Anything done anywhere is going to be a “fraction” of what is needed because this is a GLOBAL PROBLEM! It is that accumulation of all those fractions that matters here. How dense can Mr Stinton possibly be, or how dense does he think his readers are?

    7) GORE can’t SOLVE the problem. The HUMAN RACE can solve the problem. Gore is simply a publicist for the cause. Why make him the issue? Because he is red meat for the right wing? NEWT GINGRICH AND GEORGE BUSH AGREE THAT warming is happening and that it is time for us to do something.

    8) Building levees? And who is going to build them? The GOVERNMENT? Does Mr Stinton have any idea what he is suggesting here? Does he know anything about floodplains and levees? dID HE ESTIMATE THE COST OF BUILDING LEVEES FOR NEARLY EVERY MAJOR CITY IN THE WORLD (they are mostly ports, and most are at or near sea level). What does he say to the Dutch people, our allies, with half their country already below sea level? Did he witness what happened in New Orleans with all their levees a few years ago?

    9) Ah…the Bjorn Lomborg argument. We only have “finite resources” for “social spending.” But when it comes to war we seem to have infinite resources. Or when it comes to rebuilding an entire city AFTER it was inundated…we seem to find THAT money. Again…a ridiculous argument. Funding is not finite. Neither is our stupidity apparently.

    10) Mr Stinton…the “fatal conceit” at work here is your and the Cascade Policy Institute’s conceit that the “free market’ is going to solve all our problems. The fact that some problems can’t be solved without government leadership is what sticks in the craw of libertarians, lets face it. So you have to deny that the problem exists, or deny there is any possible solution for your world view to be sustained. You are willing to risk the future so that you can sustain your ideology. Well include me out.

    11) Al Gore is not a “planner” Mr Stinton. He is a former political leader. Comparing Cuba’s failures with what Gore is proposing is not apples and oranges. It is raisons and roast beef. Why not compare what the Danes and Germans and others have already done, which is reduce their carbon output from an already low base by investing in alternative, sustainable energy?

    Fortunately the rest of the world is moving ahead without you. Continue to live in your flat earth world, but don’t expect much company.

    • eagle eye

      dean, wrong about the computer models. They don’t “determine causation”. They ASSUME that all possible natural causes have been taken into account, then they ASSUME that the residual is due to greenhouse gases, then they FIT the magnitude of the greenhouse effect (temperature effect of CO2 doubling or “sensititvity” as its called) to match the very fuzzy data set. I was surprised to learn this, but learn it I did, when I actually started reading how these models work — not from quack websites, but from references in the “consensus” reports and other “establishment” sources like the National Research Council. There is NOT an independent prediction or determination of the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.

      Not surprisingly, with these assumptions, the data can be fit. But there is a wide range of predicted greenhouse gas effects, between about 1.5 and 6 degrees centigrade. This is possible because of the uncertainties in the data.

      There are also reputable claims that the greenhouse effect can be independently estimated. The low end estimate that I’ve seen is .4 degrees centigrade. Other estimates are higher.

      There are also serious people investigating alternative, unproven NATURAL causes of the observed warming. Not that they are necessarily right, but they can’t be dismissed out of hand. Assuming that known natural causes aren’t enough doesn’t prove that there are other natural causes that are not well-understood.

      There is NO firm prediction that the effect is going to be your 3.5 degrees F or about 2.0 centigrade.

      The point is not that the global warming hypothesis is wrong, but rather that there’s a great deal of uncertainty even in the “consensus” predictions from the IPCC; and reputable people out there who think even the consensus estimates are in the wrong ballpark, on the high side.

      • dean

        EE…My own readings pretty much agree with what you say. But the 3.5 degres F is the predicted stabalization temp IF we reduce atmospheric carbon inputs by I think 80% in 50 years. I’m sure that number is going to be adjusted as time goes on and we learn more.

        There is and should be lots of uncertainty. There is no reason not to keep investigating the issue on all levels. My argument as you know is that in the meantime, the most prudent course is to accelerate our transition to alternative energy, conserve better than we have been, and reduce deforestation, especially in tropical areas.

        I’m hopeful, but not optimistic, that we can significantly reduce our carbon use without having much if any negative impact on our modern lifestyles, which I happen to enjoy as much as the next person.

        As for Chris below…nothing there worth responding to.

        • Chris McMullen

          No Dean, there’s nothing you *can* respond to. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but human caused global warming is not a fact. Get used to it.

          The left’s whole ‘concern’ for the environment is nothing more than the need for more government control. Liberals couldn’t force us into socialism economically, so now they use the global warming canard. I swear to god you people can’t exist without big brother holding your hand during every phase of life.


    • Patrick


      “If the climate is actually changing.” Sorry folks. It’s been established. And greenhouse gases are the main cause….”

      Talk about heating up. Clearly nothing gets a liberal heated up faster than either questioning the issue of whether anything needs to be done about global warming (or the new PC term, “climate change”, if you prefer) or making any statement at all negative toward or about Al Gore. Who, by the way, is one of the largest hypocrites on the planet regarding this issue.

      Dean, you are correct when you say that the climate is changing. In fact, it has been changing since the beginning of time and will continue to change forever. I know you are going to take that and try to rip it apart. My guess is that your basic argument is going to be that we are now in a period like no other in history. A time in which man is now a major contributor and who is spewing all kind of mean, nasty and ugly stuff into the environment. However, thirty years ago, the rhetoric was the same except all the talk was about the impending ice age and the environmental gurus said the data showed conclusively that the earth was on a cooling trend and that this was caused by mans abuse of the environment. We needed to get active and do something drastic and fast, government needed to get involved. Mandates must be put in place. And so the movement began. So what happened? Did we get overzealous in our mandates and tip the scale too far to the warm side and now we are over heating?

      I would agree, man can, and at times, does have a negative impact on the environment. To what degree, positive or negative, in the case of something as large as global climate change is very difficult, if not impossible to tell. The UN scientist are want to claim that if something drastic is not done and done soon, the planet will be in serious peril within 50-100 years. Well, you know when I look in the newspaper each morning to see what the weather is going to be for the next 5-10 days, it is very rare that that scientific forecast is very accurate going beyond 1-2 days. So how in the world, with the enumerable amount of variables, some known, most unknown, can you possibly have me put much faith in a prediction which is 50 years out?

      To claim, as Al Gore has, and as many others like to repeat in one fashion or another, that “the debate on global warming is over, this is now a moral issue” has got to rank right up there with some of the all time dumbest and least intelligent comments ever uttered.

      How can I prove that there is not consensus and the debate is not over? Well, I can first start by reading this blog. Clearly there is not consensus here, but that is obviously a very small data set. So lets look a bigger data set. We can all do a simple 3 step experiment which takes approximately 15 seconds to complete to find this data: 1) Open your web browser and go to goggle.com, 2) type in “global warming” in the search box, 3) hit “enter” and wait 2 seconds. What do you find? When I did this, I got 2,600,000 hits back. That’s two-million, six-hundred thousand. Now, I obviously did not go through all of these, but a cursory review showed that they were from both sides of the issue.

      Clearly, there is not a consensus. Perhaps there was an error? I tried again. This time I typed in “global warming skeptic”. One would expect that if there was consensus, I would get nothing back with this search. However, that is not what I found. While not quite as many hits were returned this time, only 219,000, there clearly was not a consensus. These are not just from fly-by-night goof balls. There are numerous sites from serious scientist, some of whom were on the IPCC panel.

      Dean, you like to challenge the minds at Cascade Policy Institute, other “free-marketers” and those with a conservative bent on this and most other issues. In doing this you make the claim that there is a role and in fact a strong need for government intervention in various areas rather than letting market forces do their magic to help solve an issue, if in fact there is an issue that needs solving. Certainly on the climate change issue, this is what Al Gore and everyone who is in his camp have been pushing for. Oregon’s governor has made this a mandate and we now have our very own, Al Gore junior, (none other than Sec. of State Bill Bradbury who we apparently paid to go back to Tennessee to be trained by Gore personally) running around the state giving nifty little slide shows trying to scare the begeesus out of people and convince them that the sky is falling and government is the great savior. I hate to say it but neither Bill Bradbury nor his traveling side kick from the OEC are scientists and they each have a depth of knowledge on this subject about as deep as, well, perhaps a shallow wading pool.

      I fall into the Cascade supporter camp and am in complete agreement with them and any others who say that there is not a need for government intervention and that the market will take care of this issue. I would love to see a member of Cascade go head to head in a public debate with Bill Bradbury. In fact, I asked Bill Bradbury myself if he would be willing to participate in an open public debate if an opponent or panel could be assembled. Remember Dean, he like, Al Gore is not a scientist but they are the ones standing out on the front line leading the charge and should, if they believe so strongly in their convictions, be willing to defend those convictions. But alas, Secretary Bradbury’s answer, like Al Gores before him (who has been challenged many times to debate by people all over the world) was no. Apparently big Al has taught him more than how to run a slide projector.

      In fact, unless one has been living under a very big rock the last few years, I would say that the market is and has been responding in a resounding way to this issue and continues to grow daily. Almost to the point to where it is on overload. Virtually every business out there is implementing new products and/or revising old ones, new materials, new ideas, and new methods of doing business. Newspapers and magazines have stories almost daily. Stores of all types are full of products and advertisements, the radio stations and local TV stations provide tips and resources and information on how they are being green and sustainable and what you as a citizen can do and where you can go. The construction industry is booming in this department. Virtually every issue of every trade magazine is full of articles on builders and developers going green. There are product advertisements galore. There are trade shows and conferences and round table discussions. “Green” and “sustainable” – whatever those two terms mean and reducing your carbon footprint is every where and things are happening. So much so, that it has reached the point of absurdity.

      If fact, not more than two hours ago, I watched a short news clip on the internet on this very issue. What was the story? Apparently the US has actually LOWERED its carbon output in the last year. One of the major contributors of this – reduced driving due to the higher cost of gas. This kind of shoots a hole in the liberal theory that we need to mandate a raise in auto emission standards to help curb global warming. If the cost of gas remains relatively unchanged and the fuel efficiency of my car doubles, I and a lot of others are not going to be as worried about how many miles we are now driving!

      • dean

        Patrick…you make the common mistake of confusing weather forcasting with climate science. Weather comes and goes in short cycles, climate changes over longer cycles. (Winter is here, so whats with global warming anyway)? You set up a straw man by saying climate is always changing. Whoever said otherwise?

        Global warming as a phenomenon influenced by humans was first predicted, with great accuracy I might add, by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s. He modeled how much extra carbon would increase temperature and he was on the money. But his predictions on how fast humans would add carbon to the atmosphere were off by about 2000 years.

        You don’t need to put your “faith” in a 50 year prediction. You just need to ask yourself a simple question. Why would the vast majority of climate scientists across the world, having studied this issue to the best of their abilities over the past several decades, be raising the warning flags? What is their ultimate point other than to give us the best information they have on the subject?

        They are not “certain” and never will be. We can all sit around and watch the Arctic ice break up, deal with the 8 year drought in the Southwest, let our forests burn, and not do anything. Or we could take the best available information from the best minds on the subject and make the rather modest changes needed to give ourselves the best chance.

        You say that warming is not really happening, and if it is is not our fault, and if it is we don’t need to do anything anyway. Then you completely contradict yourself by saying the “free market” is already taking care of everything. Sorry Patrick, but that is BS. To the extent the US is making some headway, you should thank the mayors of the several hundred cities, including Portland, who have signed onto the Kyoto treaty goals and have taken steps to get things moving. And yes, given the right policies and incentives, the so called “free market is responding, in the US and overseas.

        The price of gas goes up, people dirve less, and that “shoots a hole in the liberal theory?” Please. Liberals have tried to get a high gas tax in place for decades. John Kerry was ridiculed for his support for that in the 90s. You “conservatives” (who conserve nothing) waved the “no taxes” flag and managed to keep us funding terrorists and Sheiks long after we could have bankrupted them. Yes, a higher price on not just gas but coal would make better sense than raising CAFE standards. But no, we won’t get 60 votes in the Senate for that, and Bush would not sign the bill anyway.

        Yes Patrick…the free market uber alles. No need for us to think, plan, or God forbid act. Just wait for the magic wand to make it all better. And just keep bashing the messenger, Al Gore for his hypocracy or stilted speaking style or liberalism. That’s a very mature approach to the issue don’t you think?

        • Chris McMullen

          It’s funny Dean, Liberals like you incessantly bash Christianity because of shysters like Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard and feel totally justified.

          Then you turn around and defend a total, abject hypocrite like Gore?

          Pot meet kettle.

    • Jerry

      You are more than generous is called AlGore a former political leader. What did he EVER lead? He was a silent, powerless VP under the great Bill Clinton who did little more than attend state funerals.

  • Chris McMullen

    “”If the climate is actualy changing.” Sorry folks. Its been established. And greenhouse gases are the main cause….”

    Did you know, after all the PSAs and hype, that there’s no proof high animal fat diets cause heart disease? It’s never been scientifically proven. Sure, studies point to a relationship, but the high fat/heart disease link is not a fact.

    Did you know that, Dean?

    You might want to think about that before you spout off more canned global warming platitudes. Anthropogenic climate “change” has not, I repeat not been proven and is not a fact.

  • Sal Peralta

    Investment in technologies that would reduce global warming — i.e., reducing carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel by increasing fuel economy in our fleet of consumer vehicles — will help american businesses become more competitive in a global marketplace and strengthen our economy.

    If flat-earthers like Stinton had their way in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the government would have never continued public investment in the technologies that became the modern internet and fueled the most important economic, cultural, and scientific advances of the last 20 years.

    I have no idea whether we can actually do something about man-made global warming. But the technologies that we can develop by investing in the effort may help to reduce costs by reducing our consumption of dwindling resources without sacrificing our way of life, and it may help speed the transition to new energy sources that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

    I just don’t see the downside.

  • Sal Peralta

    Every dollar of “increased costs” by investing in alternative energy or technologies to increase fuel efficiency or otherwise reducing carbon emissions is, in fact, an investment in new technologies, new business models, and new industries.

    Seen in that light, this notion of “costs” is misleading. What we are really talking about is priming the pump for the next generation of entrepreneurs.

    I can think of no argument more morally bankrupt, nor wholly un-American and cowardly than Stinton’s, which is basically that “The problems facing us are too big and challenging, so we may as well not do anything”.

    Talk about a chickenshit philosophy.

  • David from Eugene

    If you think you detect the a faint whiff of natural gas you leave the building till the experts are sure it is safe, you do not stay inside and have a candle lit dinner while waiting for the gas company to arrive. That is basic common sense.

    Currently we are having a multi-sided debate on global warning, while some believe the matter is settled and others don’t. Some believe that it is human caused some don’t. Some believe that human action can affect the out come some don’t. But prominent in that debate is an argument that the time to take effective action is limited and that the longer we wait to start the greater the sacrifices that will be needed. This argument may be wrong but it also could be correct.

    If we start taking corrective action now and it should it turn out that human activity is not a factor in global warming, we can stop. However should we take no action till the issue is resolved and it be proven that human action is the cause, we cannot turn the clock back to today.

    So we need to start taking corrective action now, while continuing the debate. That is also basic common sense.

    • eagle eye

      It’s not that simple, it’s not all or nothing. The world has yakked about Kyoto (which would have been doing something but totally ineffective) for years without doing anything. There is still time to study it another 10 or 15 years. In the meantime it would make sense to do non-destructive things e.g. build more nuclear power plants that would also reduce CO2 emissions. What doesn’t make sense is turning the world economy upside down about a possibly imaginary threat. It’s fine to talk about reducing CO2 emissions 80%. Actually doing it would be terribly destructive in many ways. Example: you’d probably have to forcibly stop development in China. A prescription for world war. I could give many other examples but will leave it at that.

    • Patrick


      Your scenario of smelling a gas leak and not sticking around to wait for the gas company is correct. You don’t wait, you get out and have things checked out. The difference though between this scenario and creating government mandated programs to take care of a “possible” problem is that in the first; once the gas leak has been fixed and the building deemed safe, everyone files back in and life moves on. Assuming your building didn’t blow up, there are generally no lasting consequences or need for new rules to be put in place. It is a problem dealt with logically, quickly and efficiently, with the least amount of cost and hardship created as possible.

      In the case of having government involved you may have possible solutions put in place, like Kyoto, but once the problem is either 1) solved, 2) deemed not to be a problem after all or 3) as in the case of Kyoto, (being a solution which is found to have little to no effect on solving the problem but has a big effect on economies), those government programs don’t go away. They simply continue to grow and grow and generally morph into something else. Our government is full of programs like these. They may be well intentioned but they yield marginal results at best and cost a fortune. That is lost capital which could be used in much more productive ways elsewhere. As a business owner, I know this all to well.

      As I noted in my earlier post, the market is already reacting to this issue in a significant way. This is being done both by companies and individuals who feel that there really is a problem and that they should and want to do something and it is being done by those who see a significant enough market that makes it worthwhile for them to serve and yes, make a profit on. In either case the issue is being addressed. This is how markets work. As the data continues to come in on this issue, the markets will continue to adjust. My guess is that by the time the bureaucrats get around to agreeing on a course of action, the market along with individuals like you and me and Dean and Jerry and all the others will have already solved the problem and for a fraction of the cost.

      • dean

        Patrick…if we (the world) are going to be successful at transitioning from carbon fuels to renewables, or in sequestering the carbon (as a new coal plant in Illinois is supposed to be able to do,) and if we are going to be able to do this without severely impacting our economy, it is going to take creative private sector minds and financing. But it is also going to take creative government leadership. We need both. Lets worry about getting rid of government programs we don’t need after we don’t need them anymore, not before we have even set them up. I would say the risk of ending up with one more bureaucracy we no longer need is a lot less than the risk of doing nothing.

        EE…you are overly critical of Kyoto. First, even though the treaty was signed in 1997 it was not ratified by enough industrial countries to go into effect until Russia signed on in 2004. The delay in implementing Kyoto targets is due to the United States intransigence as much as anything.

        Jerry, like I said its not about Al. Whatever you think of him, he is not the person responsible for determining whether the world is warming, how fast, or what can be done technically about it. Get yourself past the messenger and deal with the message.

        Chris…I said something about Christianity? Jim Baker? Ted Haggerty?

        • Jerry

          I only know this. The same far-out, left-wing, wacko dem crazies who go on and on about global warming want to cut our forests so the counties can get their ONC monies.

          How crazy is that????????

          Plus, it is hard to get past the messenger when it is a fool like AlGore.

      • David from Eugene


        There are many steps that could be taken which would benefit the country even if the Global Warming proponents turn out to be wrong. Things like constructing nuclear power plants; developing a Hydrogen production and distribution system to facilitate hydrogen powered cars; establishing higher mileage standards for automobiles sold in the United States; and developing Solar, Wind and Wave generation systems also reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

        Selling Nuclear power plants to China and India (they have the bomb so proliferation is not a problem) would help correct the current trade imbalance as well as reducing their need for coal power plants.

        Promoting low energy electric appliances and other energy conservation measures save consumers money on their utility bills as well as reducing the need to construct more power plants.

        As takes time for the positive effects of many of these to be seen, the sooner we start the better. The same can be said about research and development efforts towards finding technological solutions.

        The point is we can and should start taking steps now, even before the debate is concluded.

  • Henry

    Anyone who hasn’t seen the extensive, and growing, body of real science which clearly and overwhelmingly displays the distortions which Gore and the IPPC have peddled is not paying attention or is
    in Dean’s category.
    And for Dean to suggest those same distorters then have any credibility when it comes to providing the cost of Kyoto reforms, further demonsatrates his severe handicap.
    This isn’t even a close call worthy of the called for policies “just in case” Gore is right.
    And when we have local public agencies defrauding the public with phony emissions reduction successes to justify our local policies Dean is on board for more of the same.

    The fanatics, incompetents and con men of Dean’s religion will peddle forever any falshoods they can work session up.

    For them any means justifies their ends.

    • dean

      Jerry, by your definition I am a far-out left-wing wacko dem crazy. I have gradually come to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, its causes, and the general path forward. I don’t want to increase timber cutting on our national and BLM forests to help bail out the Counties, though I can accept some increase in cutting if it is done responsibly. So please stop over generalizing. People on “the left” have varying opinions about a lot of issues, as do people on the right.

      Henry…Naomi Oreskes did a database search on global climate change and surveyed ALL the abstracts published between 1993 and 2003 in peer reviewed scientific journals. She found 928 papers and divided them into six categories:

      1) those that endorsed the consensus position on global warming
      2) those that evaluated impacts of warming
      3) those proposing mitigation measures
      4) those that focused on study methodology
      5) those focused on paleoclimate (historic and pre-historic) climate
      6) those that rejected the consensus

      Her key finding was that NONE of the papers, as in ZERO, fell into category #6, while 75% fell into 1-3. This is about as 100% consensus as you can get on a scientific topic. Especially when you throw in the time frame of her study, with a start date two years before the first IPCC report. As time has gone on, the consensus has increased, not decreased. And this is how science works. Theories when first proposed are greeted with skepticism, put to the test, and either are rejected or become the accepted explanation depending on peer reviewed research and findings. Opinion does not matter. Facts matter.

      Most of the so-called skepticism has come from the SOCIAL sciences, like free market economist Bjorn Lomborg or Classics Major and “journalist” Lord Monckton. Much of the so called research by warming skeptics (including Monckton) is funded by Exxon and has been rejected by actual climate scientists. All the other major oil companies have come to accept global warming as reality by the way.

      Bottom line is that to the extent there is a scientific debate on global warming and its causes, it is happening within a strong consensus on the most important elements, the atmosphere is warming and the main cause is CO2. The debates are only over details.

      You want a demonstration of consensus? Below is a list of NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE organizations that accept global warming as the real deal:

      NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      National Academy of Sciences
      State of the Canadian Cryosphere (study of glaciers)
      United States Environmental Protection Agency
      The Royal Society of the UK
      American Geophysical Union
      American Meteorological Society
      American Institute of Physics
      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

      And the list goes on internationally. In sum, EVERY major scientific institution that studies the climate agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the PRIMARY cause is CO2 emissions.

      I don’t have a religion Henry. Science is not a religion. It deals in observable, testable, verifiable facts. Neither you nor the Cascade Policy Institute can repeal reality. So lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.

      • Jerry

        Dean – how do you explain these FACTS then??? I really want to know. I will really love to hear your answer, but I think I already know what it will be. Global warming is causing the extreme cold in much of the world. What else could it be???? Maybe I can leave out all the adjectives except crazy…just kidding….

        Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

        Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

        In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina’s peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina’s apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver’s temperature records extend back to 1872.

        Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

        Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

    • Chris McMullen

      Compounding the fact that most European nations who adopted Kyoto emission limits have failed to meet them. Combine that with the fact nothing of substance was reached at the Bali conference shows how feckless this global warming crap really is.

      Just to add to the nausea, these liberals who loved to bash Enron and its ties to Bush, support trading carbon offsets. Trading carbon credits is the exact same thing Enron did with excess broadband — and those hypocritical Libs support it!

      • dean

        Give me something tougher. You are describing WEATHER, not CLIMATE. Weather is what we experience today, next week, next season. Climate is experienced and measured over decades and centuries. Carbon accumulation in the atmosphere traps heat that ends up raising temperatures slightly over most of the earth, it doesn’t negate winter.

        Global warming/climate change is a measure of average temperatures taken from hundreds of reliable recording stations scattered around the world. England has been recording its temperatures from the same stations for over 300 years, the longest record we have.

        But you can’t determine that the earth is warming by reading the results of any one station or region.There is nothing to say that one part of the planet could not be cooling down while the rest is heating up.

        Just like we can’t say Hurricane Katrina was “caused” by global warming, neither can we say that a cold snap in Vermont in January or unseasonal frost in New Zealand cancels out or contradicts it.

        We are talking about global average temperatures with a few degrees of variation over decades. This means winter will still happen outside of the tropics. It could even mean glaciers building more ice in some areas, like interior Antartica, because warming can result in more precipitation, and if the warming is from and average of 40 below to 30 below you still get snow and ice as a result.

        So yes, you have some facts, Mazeltov. They are just not relevant facts. Go back, dig further, and check your sources.

        Chris…that’s an interesting critique. Kyoto targets were not met and Bali did not establish hard new targets so therefore global warming is feckless crap.

        But Round 1 Kyoto targets are for the year 2012, which by my calendar has not arived yet. And Bali was not intended to establish longer term targets, but to set up the negotiating framework for those. So your measures are faulty in both cases. With that level of analytical thinking, I can se why you are gullible with respect to any argument a global warming “skeptic” throws at the wall. I could say your own analysis is “feckless crap,” but I won’t.

        As for carbon credits, comparing these to what Enron did is not worth discussing. Enron’s dirty work was done illegally due to the DEREGULATION of energy markets. It is a poster child of well meaning libertarianism running into the wall of boundless greed.

        Carbon trading is a highly regulated international market. Its implementation will be far less than perfect, but it is a useful tool that taps free market creativity to help solve the problem. You would rather have a carbon gestapo repoing your Humvee?

  • Chris McMullen

    “Carbon trading is a highly regulated international market.”

    Oh right Dean…





    You really seem to know what you’re talking about.

    Regarding Bali, it’s good to know 20,000 people burned massive amounts of carbon to meet on a remote tropical isle and decided to meet again in the near future. A perfect example of government efficiency. Also, most EU nations aren’t even on target to meet their targets. In fact, most EU nations outputs have risen.

    And to put stock into 300 years worth of temperature readings is plain foolish. Measuring techniques and tools have dramatically changed in that time frame and ‘reliable’ weather stations have gauges located near parking lots, barbecues and air conditioners. Moreover, 300 years is a mere hummingbird wing-flap in the context of the history of the earth. The earth has naturally gone through warming periods for millennia.

    How do you think we got out of the last ice age?

    • dean

      We got out of the last ice age like we did the other ice ages. Changes to the orbit of the earth, a phenomenon not well understood yet by the way, but it has nothing to do with present global warming, which is very celarly attributed to greenhouse gasses, as per physics.

      Measuring temperatures across the planet and making analytical sense of it is difficult work. Fortunately, people like James Hansen of NASA and others, much smarter than the likes of me, have figured this out. The “heat island” effect has been taken into account, so give that one up.

      It doesn’t matter about 300 years versus 300 million. The warming we are presently experiencing is clearly tied to greenhouse gasses. There is no debate on that any longer except from cranks and a few outlyer “scientists” on the payroll of Exxon.

      Carbon trading is not the ideal, fastest or most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That would be REGULATION, as in banning new coal plants, phasing out others, outlawing eliminating any personal vehicle that gets less than 50MPG, and so forth. Is that really what you want Chris?

      Or we could have a carbon tax. It would have to be very high, and possibly indexed for inflation to keep going up. It would give people a strong price signal to stop burning so much carbon. And it would give the federal government a huge pile of cash to disburse as they see fit. Is that your preference? Then write your Congressperson.

      Cap and trade is the “free market” solution, and the only approach with sufficient votes to get through Congress. Based on experience with the sulpher dioxide cap and trade, it should work. But it will take time to get the adjustments right, and some people will find ways to cheat, as they always do.

  • Henry

    You are indeed a religious fanatic. Your emphasis on “concensus” while ignoring the facturing and undermining of the science behind it makes you a true incompetent.
    As I said earlier, anyone who has reviewed the current plethera of clear and specific science which wholy degradates Dean’s concensus based trash can easily understand his folly.
    But Dean will not review the new global warming intelligence as his camp insists is so prudent with our CIA and war.
    No, Dean has heard enough and is doing his progressive duty to the alter of Global Warming.
    The biggest fraud in history and Dean is baffled and stupified as he carries on with his balderdash.
    In real reality, Dean, recent and new “observable, testable, verifiable facts” have completely dismantled your cult’s sloppy science.
    In measurement after measurement, graph after graph and model after model Gore and the IPCC concensus has been shown to be the fraud it is. Even the concensus has crumbled to less than what it was a year ago. Within the next year we’ll see the scienfic concience surface across the board rendering your tripe what it is.
    And I’llsuggest you may be knowingly pushing what you know to be false.
    So it is you who is illequipped to lead, follow or even get the heck out of the way.

    • dean

      Don’t hold back Henry. Share the “plethera of clear and specific science.” And do let us know the citations. I’m all ears.

  • Jerry

    Dean – your weather/climate stuff is fine. But, the climate temps have not even risen a degree. And, the measurements of that are suspect.
    Here’s the deal. Do you know a Prius hurts the environment more than a Hummer? Do you know that carbon credits are a complete fiasco? Do you know that carbon taxes will hurt the economy? Do you know that your breath, when you exhale, is causing global warming? Maybe you should hold it in so you can do “your fair share” to arrest the warming.

  • Jerry

    Dean – how about this:

    Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

    The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

    • Chris McMullen

      There’s no point in trying to educate comrade Dean, Jerry. He loves the idea of government controlling our lives. No matter how much you shoot holes in his statements, his totalitarian dreams will not be persuaded.

      • Jerry

        Sadly, I believe you are right. How convenient to only believe what you want to believe and to ignore the rest.
        Kinda pathetic, though, if you ask me.
        Here’s a good one. One fill up of ethanol takes enough crops to feed a person for an entire YEAR. This is a great plan, huh?

        • dean

          Jerry…the best data available says average global temps have increased about 1.5 degrees over the past 100 years. 11 of the past 12 years rank as the warmest in modern history. And sea levels have already risen 4-8 inches. On Hummer vs Prius, you are simply repeating a right-wing “urban myth.” That study has been proven wrong by better minds than me. Bottom line is they assumed a 350,000 mile life span for the Hummer and a 100,000 mile life span for the Prius, with no supportable basis for the difference. And anyway who cares? I never said you should buy a Prius did I?

          I have not advocated carbon taxes. But yes, anything we do to reduce carbon use will probably slow economic growth somewhat.

          I’ll tell you what, I won’t hold my breath waitng for you to change your mind on global warming, and I expect the same from you.

          You are comparing the GOP senate version of global warming to my listing of the EPA, NASA NOAH, the national academy of sciences, and so forth? Which of these do you think has a political axe to grind, and which represents the scientific consensus Jerry?

          I think corn based ethanol is a bad path for us by the way. But your man Bush is gung ho on it.

          As for my being for “totalitarianism,” only someone who does not know me or my life choices would be able to think that.

          • dean

            Jerry…a further thought. Corn based ethanol is an inefficient approach. Celulosic ethanol, not yet market ready, will be better. But neither can make more than a dent in our fossil fuel use. The key point “skeptics” should think about it that there is not going to be a silver bullet that allows us to reduce carbon use while also maintaining our lives exactly as they are today. The most promising way forward is to adopt a range of existing technologies and reasonable conservation measures. Ethanol is one tool only. And at least for the present, we do have an over production of corn with respect to how much we eat.

            You can pick away at this or that solution and say it is too small or too expensive. But meanwhile you still have the problem to deal with or ignore.

  • Henry

    Could you be any more incompetent?

    You approach to studying an issue is one screwed up mess.

    Is it because you admit to ignoring all of new intelligence on Global Warming that has been posted and linked over and over again on blog after blog that you asked,

    “Don’t hold back Henry. Share the “plethera of clear and specific science.” And do let us know the citations. I’m all ears.”


    What kind of stupid ploy is that? Some game of pretending you haven’t run across it all over the place?
    And I’m supposed to go collect it all and feed it to you?

    Nice try pal.
    This will go down as the biggest scientific fraud of all times.

    For instance:
    * Remember the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in 400 years, perhaps in 1000 years?
    Oops, they made an error in the data. 1998 is now considered tied with 1934.
    (not that warmest in 1000 years is relevant, considering the earth’s BILLION year history)
    see: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt

    * Remember most of the warmest years occurred in the 1990s? Well not any more – they are scattered through the century. Here they are by decade: 1910s…2, 1920s…1, 1930s…2, 1950s…1, 1990s…2, 2000s…1

    * I presume you all know that Al Gore’s famous temperature chart that shows stable temperature for 1000 years then a sudden rise has been shown to be just plain wrong (I believe it is a fraud – when you remove “strip bark” trees from the data set, the chart shown nothing unusual; when you feed random data to the computer program, it gives that shape about 80% of the time)

    * The oceans are not rising at any unusual rate.

    * Greenland ice continues to increase, not decrease. Viking farms are still under ice.

    * Antarctic ice continues to build.

    Here is a nice little video in 4 parts, from a real scientist, not some political hack:

    Here are some items from the New Your Times:

    * All who know the story of the search for the Northweat Passage will have no doubt that Capt. Ronald Amundsen and his little vessel, the Gjoa, have earned a conspicuous place in the last chapter of the book. … He had the boldness to conceive, the courage to attempt, and the goad luck to achieve the first voyage by a single vessel through the Northwest Passage; – Dec 10, 1905

    * Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of Encroaching Ice Age – Oct 7, 1912

    * Melting Polar Ice Caps to Rise Level of Seas and Flood the Continents – May 15, 1932

    * Sergeant Larsen, with a crew composed partly of landlubbers successfully completed the 10,000-mile trip across the top of the world from Vancouver to Halifax. – May 5, 1946

    * Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be An Open Sea – Feb 20, 1969

    * Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing: Major Cooling May Be Ahead – May 21, 1975

    The latest report just issued by the U.S. Senate’s Cmte. on Environment and Public Works.


    Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

    The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

    Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement. (LINK)

    • dean

      Not so fast my septical nemesis.
      First, variations year to year are just not relevant. It is the long term trend that is relevent. It does not matter if 1934 was warmer than 1998. Temporary effects, like El Nino or a volcanic erruption can send a particular year way up or down.

      There are several long term records that climate scientists use. Actual temperature recordings since 1850 of the Climate Research Unit of the UK show a clear warming trend that begins around 1910, peaked around 1940, then dipped for a few decades and began climbing rather relentlessly in 1980 through 2006. These are the best records that exist of combined global and sea temperatures world wide. 2006 was the 6th warmest year on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 03, 04, and 02. 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850 have occured in the past 12 years.

      The NASA record dates from 1880 and shows the same warming amount and trend as the CRU data. The bore hole record that dates 500 years shows 1 degree C warming, about the same as the other records but over a longer time period. Then there is the tree ring record which goes back 1000 years. It confirms the above records.

      Yes, NASA and the CRU contantly reassess their data and make corrections, which is what good scientists are supposed to do. Maybe they decided 1934 was warmer than 98. Who bloody cares Henry? 1 year does not a trend make.

      “Al Gores” chart was not his by the way. He used the scientifically accepted chart of the time. I expect you are referring to the so-called “hockey stick” line that shoots up at the end (the last decades. This chart, which is only one interpretation of global warming by the way, has held up under assault from skeptics. They did find a methodology flaw, but when it was corrected it showed the same results. Plus, this chart is now 8 years old. Its intent was to show that previous warm periods hundreds of years back were cooler than today. By compressing a long timeline in a single chart you get a dramatic graphic, but the basic conslusion has not changed.

      I think you need to check your source on Greenland. Antarctic continental ice may be growing in some areas, but recent data from NASA suggests otherwise. And anyway, as I said, a bit of warming can increase precipitation and can result in more ice and snow in some areas. Plus, you can’t disprove global warming by focusing on any given area in isolation. That is why it is called GLOBAL, NOT REGIONAL WARMING!

      There is no question at all that nearly all glaciers that have been measured over decades are receding and recent data says the Greenland ice sheet is thinning out, and much faster than had been anticipated.

      As for “global cooling predicted in the 1970s,” again, that is urban myth. There were some poular media articles that suggested this, but no scientific papers or consensus at all. Recycled gibberish.

      Again Henry…your Senate GOP versus every major climate science body in the world? Who has the political axe here?

      Henry, your “new intelligence” is I am sorry to say, crap. And the evidence beneath you is thinning moer quickly than the Arctic sea ice in summer. You can believe the earth is flat for all I care. You are condemned to live in your own bubble of ignorance.

      Bottom line though, I hope you are right Henry I hope I am the gullible idiot. Me, 75% of the American public, every nation in the world, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Al Gore, and the world scientific community. I hope we are all wrong and that you…Henry…and Anthony Stinton, esteemed Cascade Policy Institue Intern, are right. It is all just a big made up fraud to advance the cause of one world government.

  • Henry

    What a card Dean. Now you’re the lecturer.

    It’s obvious you didn;t even eatch the you tube presentation.
    The 4 part your tube has all the long term measurements from NASA, CRU et al.

    You don’t even know what you are siting.
    That’s the problem with kooks like you who don’t bother looking at what’s in front of them.

    Go watch the real stuff and come back with something of substance instead of trying to play scientist.


    And then come back and address any of the scientific torpedoes.
    The science is from those sources YOU acknowledge as credible.
    But it’s the complete science and graphs without distortion while highlighting the IPCC errors and manipulations.

  • Jerry

    Dean, My citations were from the UN study, not some right wing nut jobs. And, guess what, a Hummer could last 350K – the Prius will need new batteries at 100K for certain, and those batteries are much of the concern in the comparison, so not truly an urban myth as you say. I will grant you that this may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the batteries are very energy intensive to create and ship and replace and you MUST take that into account.

    Sadly, you ignore this fact along with many others.

    I hope you bought all LED lights for Christmas this year, I hope you have all compact fluorescent lights in your home, I hope you have your thermonstat set to 62 or lower, I hope you don’t have a hot tub, I hope you don’t have any vehicle that gets under 30 MPG, I hope you walk when you could drive, I hope you ride mass transit EVERY POSSIBLE time you can, I hope you are truly doing everything you can to help in this global warming disaster we find ourselves in.
    If you are not, why should we listen to you?
    AlGore certainly doesn’t practice what he preaches in any way whatsoever!

    • dean

      Henry…last I checked “youtube” was not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Maybe you think that is the “real stuff,” but truly you are just revealing your gullibility.

      Jerry…I don’t doubt some scientists question this or that aspect of global warming. That is how it is suposed to work. Then they test their questions, submit for peer review, and truth wins out. So if your qualified critics overturn current theory, great. That will be good news for all of us. Until then, I’ll still take the Prius over the Hummer since it would get me where I want to get more efficiently. You can drive whatever suits you.

      As for my personal life choices, if it makes you feel better:
      We don’t put up lights for the season. We light candles.
      We have had compacts flos for years
      My 10 year old pickup gets about 25MPG
      I walk and cycle a lot, but not as much as I should
      I use Max
      I assure you I am not doing Everything I can. I could do more.

      So that lets you off the hook Jerry. Wait for me and Al to achieve sainthood and then do your bit.

      Merry Christmas to you.

      • Jerry

        I am glad to hear you are doing your part. Thank you. Don’t assume I am not doing mine.

        I am doing mine, too, as I recently got a K&N air filter for my Yukon (FLEXFUEL by the way) and it now gets at least 1.5 more MPG. I wonder why more people don’t do this? if everyone dropped a K&N in the car we could stop importing from Venezuela entirely.

        We are both doing a lot more than AlGore, by the way.

        A very Merry Christmas to you and yours, as well. We actually got LED Christmas lights this year for our Duffy ALL ELECTRIC boat, too.
        We were out cruising last night. No fuel, no oil changes, no tune-ups, just plug it in!
        I am a leader in the marine sense, as there are very few all electric boaters in the country. I trust you will be pleased.

  • Henry

    Boy dean, anythig but focus on the science, right?

    After all of the opportunities to address the real and complete science now you’re on one of the default dodgings and divertings by criticizing the mechanism for public distribution, you tube for not being a “peer reviewed journal”?
    You might as well just chant concensus over and over again.

    Your incompetence shines yet again.
    Incappable of even looking at a growing group of scientists who have exposed the concensus for the fraud it truly is.
    You’re disregarding any and all evolving science.

    The 4 part your tube and other experts detail, with easy to understand clarity, exactly how manipulated and distorted the concensus case is.
    Look only at the science, the measurements and graphs which both sides use.
    One side uses the entire set of facts and graphs while the concensus side corrupts all of it by excerpting out portions which dislay a trend that supports their extraordirily faulty modeling.
    It’s almost child like as they play with the science, claim it to be of the highest reliability then ignore all of it’s inaccuracies while delcaring their is no debate.
    And there you are informing people You Tube is not peer reviewed journal. Well thank you very much for that convenient wisdom.

    With the full annalysis showing the climate variations for what they really are, there is no excuse for anyone like you blindly following the concensus any longer.
    Apparently you are corrupted by a bias and agenda.
    There are hundreds of scientists and many groups who have or are abaondoning the GW ship.
    Just as you will once you get a grip and apply any intellectually honest read and very basic critical thinking.
    Pick any of the main points and graphs from the 4 part you tube and allow yourself to recognize they are the same data as the concensus makers but the whole and real story.
    The entire concensus case is being exposed as the extreme fraud it is.
    Again, look only at the science, measurements, graphs, patterns and trends.
    As for your personal life choices?
    Candles pollute.
    compact flos make me yawn,
    your 10 year old pickup pollutes more than newer ones,
    your walking and cycling is irrelevant,
    you must drive to use MAX
    and by promoting bad policies, as you do, you are making worse the problems we face.
    Hopefully you won’ do more.

    • dean

      Henry…many thanks for all the enlightenment you have offered to me and the readers fo this post. Youtube rocks. Global warming problem solved. It was all just a misreading of the charts! Doh! How could NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the American meteorological society, and all the rest have been so stupid? They must have missed Youtube! Next problem? Skip the journals. Just go directly to Youtube and save some grief.

      You are right Henry. You win. I can’t believe I fell for the giant hoax of global warming. I’m buying a Hummer tommorow.

  • Henry

    There you go dean, hiding in one of your defaults.

    You could address any of the ice cores, snow pack, temperatures, water levels and other historical data in the piece. All of which comes not from you tube or opinion but from the very institutions you find credible.
    The IPCC cencensus makers could also but they choose your default instead. Hiding from it while chanting we know best.

    Your lack of intellectual honesty has you so encumbered you can’t stand to look at the full science now readily available for your comprehension and consideration.
    Instead you repeat your diverting nonsense about youtube.
    What difference does the link or location to view something make?
    There are other links to look at this and more.

    At least you loonies are showing some progress. A couple months ago you were claiming the opposing science didn’t even exist.
    Now you’re rejecting it because it’s been posted on You Tube.

    With the senate report stating 400 various scientists have come together in opposition to the IPCC claims, you’ll have to recycle all of your defaults.

    • dean

      Jerry…good for you on the boat and car and lights. We may be doing more than Al personally, but you have to admit he has done more to raise people’s awareness of the issue, whether you believe him or not.

      And on my 10 year old pickup, if I can make it last another 10 the lifecycle energy savings will exceed what I could accomplish by trading it in for a newer pickup that may get better mileage.

      Henry…Merry Christmas. May the coming return of light help you eventually see the way.

  • Henry

    Your reluctance to view and comment on the substance of the 4 part video above says it all. In that video presentation, there is not just a clear debunking but the magnitude of the debunking is stunning.
    And it uses the same measurements and graphs which formed the centerpieces of the concensus.

    Your deliberate avoidance makes you hopeless.

    If you want to fantasize that there is not any prominent scientists who practice hard core, honest and real science and also contradict your concensus fraud, well big surprise. There’s plenty of company for you.

    You have demonstrated no interest in any science beyond the pre-IPCC manipulations and flawed modeling.
    Beyond that you dismiss all based upon no membership in your concensus society.
    It is your choice to pretend that only concensus scientists can and should be viewing the full measurements and graphs they have so misused.

    A misuse which any person can recognize and comprehend

    It is not light which has you and yours in your zombie way, it’s the coolaid.

    • dean

      Henry…it isn’t up to you and me to settle the issue scientifically. It is up to the scientists. Then it is up to the policy makers to decide what if anything to do about it. Anyone is free to interpret the graphs of past climate however they want, and anyone is free to offer new evidence for whatever their pet theories are. I’ll let the climate scientists vet all the information and draw their conclusions without my help okay? I suggest you do the same.

      Like I said, if it all turns out to be a hoax or mistake, so much the better for all of us. But meanwhile…..

  • Henry

    Dean what a fraud YOU are.

    Now you’re deliberately avoiding the contradicting science and pretending it’s only for concensus scientists?

    How convenient.

    There is no interpretation of the graphs neeccessary. Just compare the concensus’ graph use and the whole graphs. Which is what the professor video allows anyone to do.
    What they show is as plain as the nose on your face.
    The concensus has falsly taken portions of graphs and drawn conclusions and trends which don’t appear on the full graphs.
    Is that too much for you to comprehend?
    Conveniently so it appears.

    While your annointed concensus makers are spreading imaginary science and hysteria our real world is producing the deepest December snow on record.
    You better call google your concensus scientists again so you know what to say next.

    Global Warming= deepest December snow on record.


    90-plus inches of snow set record for Sliverton
    By Scott Willoughby
    The Denver Post
    Article Last Updated: 12/10/2007 11:38:44 PM MST

    The powder was very deep at Silverton Mountain, after the ski resort received 90 inches this past week. (Photo courtesy of Silverton Mountain)
    Silverton Mountain was the big winner in what’s shaping up as a “December to Remember” in Colorado ski country. The San Juan Mountain ski area received more than 90 inches of snow last week, qualifying as the second- largest storm in Silverton Mountain’s history and contributing to the deepest December snow on record. According to ski area officials, the only larger storm to hit Silverton Mountain was during the winter of 2005, when 117 inches of snow fell during a 13-day storm cycle.
    Still, the current 110-inch snow base at the upper mountain is unprecedented for the month of December, prompting a veritable huck-fest among big mountain riders on the “experts only” terrain. The area typically doesn’t see a 100-inch base until February, and early opportunists are making the most of the anomaly by jumping 30-foot cliffs and skiing steep, 50-degree chutes that typically remain unskiable until late in the season.
    The area is currently open only on weekends for unguided skiing during the month of December, although the dates are subject to change (www.silvertonmountain.com). The mountain will be open Thursday through Sunday beginning Jan. 3. Guided skiing for up to 80 people per day begins Jan. 17.
    Other areas also scored big in last week’s storm cycle, including Crested Butte Mountain Resort, where skiing remains free through Saturday. More than 6 feet of snow fell in seven days last week. Monarch Mountain picked up 72 inches of snow. Wolf Creek accumulated 53 inches and a 100-inch base.

    • dean

      Henry…global climate change theory can’t be understood by using single data points, i.e. a winter cold snap in a single place or region. By pointing to examples like Silverton Mountain, you are simply highlighting your misunderstanding of the subject.

      We could have a major volcanic erruption next year that results in global cooling until the grit works its way out of the atmosphere. Would that disprove global warming? No, this already happened in the 90s when Mt Pinatubo(?) blew its top, and the results were predicted in advance.

      Climate scientists have been tracking temperatures across land and sea from fixed points over decades, and in some cases centuries. They take these measurements, crunch the numbers, average them out and determine change globally. While the earth as a whole may be warming, some places could be cooling. Most measured glaciers are melting, but a few may be adding ice. It is the cumulative measurements that matter.

      In addition, there are lots of other data that reinforces the temperature measurements. Receding glaciers, higher sea temperatures and an observed rise in sea level, earlier blooming times for flowering plants, earlier migrations of wildlife, forest stress, prolonged droughts, breaking up of the arctic sea ice in summer, upper atmospheric temperature readings, and so forth. You also have measurements of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the basic physics that shows how these gasses trap atmospheric heat. The mathematical models that show how X amount of greenhouse gas will result in Y temperature change have been supported by the measurements.

      I don’t know who the “professor” in the video is and I don’t care. If he has something useful, he can submit his interpretation of the long term climate graphs to the relevant scientific bodies, have his work reviewed by his peers, and maybe make himself famous by overturning the accepted body of evidence. He could probably also get a nice fat bonus from Exxon if he succeeds.

      Give it up Henry. Drink the cool aid. It is yummie. Being a zombie isn’t so bad….join us…..

  • Henry


    You got to be one of the dumbest liberals I have ever come across.

    What kind of mind do you have? Did I say climate change could be determined by this one snow storm or record?
    Of course not. I didn’t suggest of infer it either.

    By your pretending I was, simply highlights your elementary small mindedness.
    It amazing what you perceive as others misunderstanding while you offer up kindergarten lessons such as the volcanic erruption story. It made me feel like it was nap time.

    Look bozo, I’ve been trying to get you to look at the data Climate scientists have been tracking and now your’e telling me to consider them?

    It’s exactly those temperatures across land and sea from fixed points over decades, and in some cases centuries, the measurements, the crunching, the averaging them out and plotting the changes that YOU refuse to review. Along with snow pack and glacier measurements, and other key data.

    But here YOU are then telling ME “””””It is the cumulative measurements that matter.””””?

    That’s the whole point. My point, and you’remaking it for me.

    The concensus makers have NOT used the cumulative measurements and comparisions that matter and have instead segmented out portion to create false trends, indications and conclusions.
    But you refuse to look at the very data you mention yourself.
    If you did you would discover the extreme abuse of the data by your concensus touters.
    It’s all there including the other data that reinforces the temperature measurements. Receding glaciers, higher sea temperatures and an observed rise in sea level, earlier blooming times for flowering plants, earlier migrations of wildlife, forest stress, prolonged droughts, breaking up of the arctic sea ice in summer, upper atmospheric temperature readings, and so forth. You also have measurements of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the basic physics that shows how these gasses trap atmospheric heat. The mathematical models that show how X amount of greenhouse gas will result in Y temperature change have been supported by the measurements.
    That’s why you don’t know the IPCC doesn’t use the complete data.

    No you don’t care to see the data. You’re assuming the concensus folks have it all fully dispalyed and considered and so there’s no need to look at it yourself.

    You just can’t comprehend that the concensus would actually be distorting and using bad science as well as be deliberatly omitting the contradicting science they have collected.
    Having that closed of a mind is a severe handicap.

    The professor, and MANY others have submitted much data and with little interpretation. The complete data the IPCC doesn’t want you to review and consider, speaks for itself. Like I said, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.
    The full data and full graphs with more added.
    His and other’s work have been peer reviewed. (another default position of yours)
    You’re stuck with your default positions because you are too stupid and bias to be curious.

    Another sweeping debunking with all the complete data can be found here with over 19,000 scientists supporting it.
    Go here

    Be sure and take a look at the list of over 19,000 scientist signatories. From all over the country. Then come back with another default that they all work for Exxon.

    scroll down
    *Click to see the letter from the past president of the National Academy of Sciences.

    *Click to see this peer reviewed research paper.

    Links, Authorship, and Address
    The Global Warming Review Paper is available as a PDF file in 3 sizes. After clicking one of the links below, please allow a few moments for the paper to download and activate the PDF Reader on your computer.
    Global Warming Review PDF- 1 MB – Low Resolution (150 dpi)
    Global Warming Review PDF – 3 MB – Medium Resolution (300 dpi)
    Global Warming Review PDF – 5 MB – High Resolution (600 dpi)
    Figures with Captions – PowerPoint – 8MB
    Figures with Captions – Flash Format – 3MB
    Figures with Captions – HTML

    and finally this video

    See Dr. Noah Robinson’s Video Presentation: https://www.discovery.org/v/30

    • dean

      Henry…I may be an ultra dumb liberal, but I know how to spell

      So if you were not implying that the snowstorm in Colorado somehow refutes global warming theory, or that it provides any evidence whatsoever, then why to you clip it in? Just as a space filler? Being so dumb I must have missed whatever point you had.

      The clip below is from NASA. I know…they are just a bunch of liberals, bureaucrats…whatever. But some people think NASA knows what they are talking about, and they have a few accomplishments under their belt. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/global_warming_update3.html

      Evidence for Global Warming
      Recent observations of warming support the theory that greenhouse gases are warming the world. Over the last century, the planet has experienced the largest increase in surface temperature in 1,300 years. The average surface temperature of the Earth rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.08°F to 1.62°F) between 1906 and 2006, and the rate of temperature increase nearly doubled in the last 50 years. Worldwide measurements of sea level show a rise of about 0.17 meters (0.56 feet) during the twentieth century. The world’s glaciers have steadily receded, and Arctic sea ice extent has steadily shrunk by 2.7 percent per decade since 1978.

      Even if greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized today, the planet would continue to warm by about 0.6°C over the next century because it takes years for Earth to fully react to increases in greenhouse gases. As Earth has warmed, much of the excess energy has gone into heating the upper layers of the ocean. Scientists suspect that currents have transported some of this excess heat from surface waters down deep, removing it from the surface of our planet. Once the lower layers of the ocean have warmed, the excess heat in the upper layers will no longer be drawn down, and Earth will warm about 0.6°C (1° F).

      But how do scientists know global warming is caused by humans and that the observed warming isn’t a natural variation in Earth’s climate? Scientists use three closely connected methods to understand changes in Earth’s climate. They look at records of Earth’s past climates to see how and why climate changed in the past, they build computer models that allow them to see how the climate works, and they closely monitor Earth’s current vital signs with an array of instruments ranging from space-based satellites to deep sea thermometers. Records of past climate change reveal the natural events—such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity—that influenced climate throughout Earth’s history. Today, scientists monitor those same natural events as well as human-released greenhouse gases and use computer models to determine how each influences Earth’s climate.

      Reconstructing Past Climate Change
      Like detectives at a crime scene, scientists reconstruct past climate changes by looking for evidence left in things like glacial ice, ocean sediments, rocks, and trees. For example, glacial ice traps tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a record of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 650,000 years, and the chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature. From these and other records, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” Paleoclimatology allowed scientists to show that climate changes in the past have been triggered by variations in Earth’s orbit, solar variation, volcanic eruptions, and greenhouse gases.

      Have your petition signers send their material to NASA Henry. Or have them send the Youtube piece. That should do the trick.

      Merry Christmas

  • Henry

    Yeah stay in default mode with your elementary narrow mindeness.

    It’s amazing how little interest you have in looking at what NASA also looks at.
    If you did you would know that there is no unusal warming occuring and that manmade CO2 is not causing it.

    The records and measurements that you have no interest in speak for themselves.

    As time moves on you can only chant your echo chamber defaults while looking more foolish every day.
    All in the face of ample opportunity to observe NASA science just as all of the 19,000 signatories and others have.
    Plenty of whom are progressives with former beliefs that Al Gore was delivering an important and honest message.

    Your approach of deliberate ignorance is the stuff of zealots and zombies.

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)