2007 A Year of Re-evaluations

2007 was a year when many were forced to re-evaluate decisions, perceptions and conclusions. It turned out that many of the things we thought we knew were wrong–and a number of leaders need to be given a second look. Below are nine examples of conventional wisdom that wasn’t so wise.

1) Iraq: “A Lost Cause”. Not so fast. One year ago nearly everyone in the elite media had buried President Bush under his stubbornness on Iraq. Bush deserves credit for his leadership under withering political fire. Our men and women in uniform deserve credit for their loyalty to a country that gave up on their mission. And David Patraeus deserves credit as the greatest American general since Dwight D. Eisenhower. His surge strategy is clearly working. Many are owed apologies.

2) Congress: “Democrats Can Do Better”. One year after taking control of the Legislative Branch and Democrats have next to nothing to show for their promises to the American people. They couldn’t even deliver for The Far Left which wanted them to end the mission in Iraq. Here in Oregon, total Democrat control of the state government turned out to mean what it always means-government, bureaucracy, taxes and fees all grow. I predicted a short life for Democrat majorities in Congress (one or two terms at most). I stand by my prediction.

3) Hollywood: “Patriotic & In Touch”. For the last four years, Tinseltown has been turning out one movie after another that portrays American soldiers as idiots, drug addicts, criminals, lost souls and victims. The War on Terror is attacked overtly and subtly as fascist, McCarthyism, evil, sadistic, phony or fueled by corporate greed. The gross receipts from these films wouldn’t buy Oprah’s next house. Americans are rejecting Hollywood’s cynical attitude and their repeated attacks on our country’s values and leadership. There is a pile of money to be made by any producer willing to start giving audiences Pro- American pictures again.

4) Iran: “Conflict is Imminent”. A recent U.S. intelligence report seems to suggest that Iran curtailed its nuclear ambitions when they saw us invading their neighbor Iraq. Clearly American strength motivated both Libyan and Iranian leaders to re-evaluate our determination. Teddy Roosevelt was correct. What we don’t know is what Iran has been doing for the last two years as America’s will waned. The issue of Iran and their worldwide support of terror will now fall to the next Presidential administration.

5) Pakistan: “General Musharraf Will Maintain Stability”. The lid came off of Pakistani radicals in 2007. Gen. Musharraf will be forced to step aside in 2008 and relinquish control to a more democratically elected government. All this at the urging of the United States. Whoever leads this nuclear-armed Muslim country, Americans will be expecting help resolving our problem with terrorist safe havens in the Northern Pashtun area. Pakistan may end up worse-off without Musharraf.

6) Global Warming: “The Debate is Over”. The most radical elements of this worldwide movement look and sound more like religious fundamentalists with each passing day. Finally, large numbers of scientists are beginning to challenge this juggernaut which plays fast and loose with the Scientific Method and threatens the lives and progress of millions in the world’s poorest countries by raising energy and food prices. Nearly one hundred years ago, the world’s self-appointed elites blindly embraced another worldwide collectivist ideology. Billions suffered. Those who do not learn from history…

7) President Hillary Clinton: “Inevitable”. She may not even win her primary. I still think she’s the favorite on the Democrat side. Her real victory was intimidating all the other credible Democrat candidates from entering the race in the first place. However, if Republicans refrain from going overboard in their attacks on her, I believe she can be defeated in November (Only Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney seem plausible primary winners over the next two months). If the Democrats choose someone else, the odds for Republicans improve.

8.) The Economy: “Mishandled”. President Bush’s tax cuts not only revived the economy, they also generated extra revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Each year, Bush detractors have predicted a recession, yet the economy seems to weather every storm including this year’s sub-prime meltdown. Bush’s economy has now surpassed Clinton’s in growth. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is lower than the 40-year average. Bush deserves the credit.

9) American Entertainment Culture: “A Net Good”. American is suffering from a distinct lack of celebrity role models. From Hollywood we get mostly drunks, gangsters, exhibitionists and extreme narcissists. From the world of sports–steroid users, dog fighters, brawlers and cheaters. Some example for the nation’s children. Expectation levels have fallen through the basement. Either I’m just getting older and joining the never ending chorus of pop culture critics, or we are heading for a serious correction in this country. If so, bring it on!

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 477 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    Worth noting here is that all of these WRONG perceptions and conclusions were made by left-wing, know-it-all, wack job, elite crazies.

  • David

    Not to mention the press

  • Jerry

    The “press” is aother story. What fun for them all to see their viewership and readership DECLINE each and every day.

    • CRAWDUDE

      The major networks are slowly paring their news divisions down due to lack of viewership………………….I’m just hoping the Oregonian folds someday soon.

  • Shep

    At least we have an honorable Governor. No so much.
    On the matter of Goldschmidt and what Kulongoski knew.

    Clearly there was no investigation at all. In fact, as reported in the O this morning Leonhardt was not even called or interviewed. Had Mullmann done so he would have heard more testimony of additional conversations between Leonhardt and the Governor.

    Mullmann will be tainted by his participation and directing this fix.

    And how classic for the decision to be released late on a Friday.

    The cooked up idea that because the polygraph isn’t admissible in court it shouldn’t even be considered in an investigation is laughable. That’s exactly where polygraphs are used routinely. For investigations.
    In this case Mullmann decided, politically, that no investigation would occur, no thought applied to Leonhardt’s polygraph or that Kulongoski was never asked to take a polygraph by the same Department of Public Safety Standards and Training who asked Leonhardt.
    That’s so rich.

    Mullmann’s logic isn’t puzzling at all. He simply dispensed with logic just as he did with any genuine consideration of Leonhardt’s story and the complaint against the Governor.
    Now the stench of Goldschmidt has spread even more.

  • duh!

    Hey author: let’s revisit the recession question at the end of ’08!

    • CRAWDUDE

      And if not then , do you want to revisit it in 09? Eventually this country will cycle into a recession, then you can jump for joy I guess.

      I have no doubt you don’t remember the recession at the end of the last administration, no you wouldn’t have noticed that, would you have, no doubt that was blamed on the new administration.

      I wonder, if the person you want as president is elected and we go into recession……..will it then of be the fault of the previous administration or the then current one?

      Duh is right for your handle!

  • Jason

    And the right wing machine keeps on churning out false percerptions, conclusions, falsehoods, and *lies*. Will you people never stop? I’ll give you credit, while all politicians are phony, you people can pull wool over the eyes of the American people better than any Democrat ever could. That alone makes me lean Democratic.

    • CRAWDUDE

      So you’re saying you vote for people you know are lying instead of people you suspect of lying (because they are so good at it)?

      With that kinda logic, you’re probably the kind of person the liberals target when they make their advertisements.

      Good luck, let me know how that works out for ya I guess.

  • dean

    1) “Elite media?” How much do journalists make at a typical newspaper? The entire Joint cheifs of Staff, also predicted the surge would fail by the way and advised against it, as did the Iraq study group. And lets face it, we are still walking on eggshells in Iraq. Any prediction is pure speculation at this point because the future is up to the Iraqis, not us.

    2) Yes, a 1 seat majority in the Senate turned out not worth much. But I’ll bet you the dems increae their majorities in both chambers in 08. The public is not stupid, and they know who is keeping the war going, they know who vetoed health care for kids, they know who tried to dismantle social security, and who refuses to face up to global warming (see 6). Your party is not presently well regarded Steve.

    3) “Hollywood” is not a political movement. It is a place of business. It creates movies and TV shows that it thinks people want to watch. It always puts out more failures than successes, then regroups and tries again. 65% of Americans now think the Iraq war was a mistake and we ought to begin withdrawing.

    4) Teddy Roosevelt? Bush is the opposite. He talks loudly and has broken our stick in the wrong war. And he nearly tried to use that broken stick to start another unecessary one, the moron that he is.

    5) Are you really saying you want democracy in Pakistan? What if they elect al Queda? They already did in the Northwest provinces by the way. Bush’s push for elections there is likely to go badly, as did his push for elections in Iraq and Palestine. Unfortunately Mushariff is probably the best we are going to get theref or the time being.

    6) What can I possibly say. on one side you actually have science, and on the other….what? Oh…NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, and EVERY major, credible scientific organization in the US and world. The other side, a few actual scientists who challenge some aspects of global warming, and a whole lot of know-nothing cranks who rely on the non peer reviewed internet to spread the same recyled crap that has been shown to be wrong for years.

    And Matt, you reveal your true issue by mixing scientific measurements and analysis with a political ideology that had nothing to do with the issue. Your fear is that if global warming is real, then we might have to mobilize THROUGH GOVERNMENT to actually adress the problem. So you try in vain to ignore reality by assigning political motivation to the scientists. But reality will get you in the end my friend.

    7) Lets let the voters firgure this one out.

    8) Great economy. For the rich. And we have weathered the sub-prime meltdown? Really? I hope you are right on that. In fact I hope you are also right on global warming as well.

    9) Guilty of generalizing with too small a data set. Have you checked out the current Trail Blazers lately and compared them to the team of 3 or 4 years ago? You think we are not improving our role models? Anyway, using movie stars and sports heroes as role models is just not a good idea. How about teachers, police officers, fire fighters, pothole fillers, and ecologists instead?

    • CRAWDUDE

      I wouldn’t doubt if the DNC doesn’t lose a senate seat or two. Landrieu from LA, is in big trouble, especially after the Governor went GOP.

      As much as the Oregonian says it I don’t see Smith being as vulnerable as they hope. Even so, once Merkelys record is illuminated to the public, he’ll be finished.

      There’s some close races but I don’t see the GOP losing anything….in the senate.

      Now in the house………………….those races are local politics and it’s hard to guage. 1994 wasn’t expected nor was the degree of trouncing the GOP took last election. With so many retirements I wouldn’t begin to venture a guess at the house results.

      As for the Blazers! Woohoo, 11 in a row, they look good and no mug shots! Now if Dallas can knock off Washington and the Vikes can knock off the Broncos, my year will start out great, lol!

    • Jerry

      Dean – however much journalists make at typical newspapers is too much. They don’t report – they lecture – and most are so left of center that what they write is simply not news.

      Fortunately, for all of us, these moronic leftists will be soon out of work, as every daily in the country is seeing declines in not only readership but in ad revenue as well. Ditto for local radio and TV.

      This is good news for sure.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Thats because the results of the NEA liberals, are students who can’t read at graduation!

        • dean

          CD…wishful thinking. The republicans will lose 4-6 seats in the senate by most objective estimates. Be prepared to see Al Franken as a senator and Hill or Obama (or more hopefully Biden) in the White House.

          Jerry…as a very part time, very low paid journalist for my local paper, my take is that the typical reader is a lot more biased than the typical article in the paper. It is true most working journalists lean left, as do most people educated in liberal arts in general. But as professionals they learn to leave their opinions to the opinion page, and if they don’t their editor sets them straight. The same journalists who reported our great victory in Iraq then reported the rise of the insurgency and are now reporting the “success” of the surge. The same journalists who write about how great public transportation is are the same ones who broke the story on the cost overuns of the OHSU tram. Journalists, report the news, they don’t make it happen. Those who opinionate tend to do so where they are supposed to, and well run papers keep the editorial staff very seperate from the opinion staff (and everyone seperate from the advertisers). But the reader tends to agree with the article that supports their position and finds bias in the one that doesn’t.

          It may be that conservatives just don’t agree with reality as often as liberals do (just teasing).

          And CD…liberal arts grads are about the ONLY ones who can read and write well. Grant them that much, because they may not have a lot of other marketable skills (would you like fries with that?).

          • dean

            By the way, 125 journalists have been killed trying to cover the Iraq war since 2003. Most of these are Iraqis, some whom were working for western news organizations.

            There is a reason fredom of the press is explicitly guarenteed in the bill of rights. It is considered an essential watchdog on government and other power centers. When dictatorships gain control, the first thing they shut down is the free press.

            So before you bash journalists or degrade their work, consider how reliant we all are on them in the big picture.

  • Sally

    “But as professionals they learn to leave their opinions to the opinion page, and if they don’t their editor sets them straight.”

    That may be your experience, but I have found (both inside the media industry and outside) the opposite to be true.

    Also, if a left leaning journalist lets his/her opinion influence the reporting, do you really think that a left leaning editor is going to “set them straight”?

    More from dean: “Journalists, report the news, they don’t make it happen. ”

    Not true. They report what they think the news is. They report their opinion of the news. They report the news, from their perspective and to reflect their (left) leanings. They regularly expose their own bias with their reporting.

    Finally from dean: “And CD…liberal arts grads are about the ONLY ones who can read and write well.”

    Hopefully just a dean snark, but obviously not true. Obviously, most books are not written by liberal arts grads, even most ‘good’ books. And, liberal arts grads are the ONLY ones who can read? LOL

    Read that sentence again, out loud, to yourself, in the mirror, and try and keep from laughing out loud. Seriously, only a complete MORON would write such an idiotic statement. Are you a liberal arts grad yourself? LOL Opps, you just proved yourself wrong.

  • Jerry

    I must say I have to agree with Sally on this one. The news “reporting” is so one-sided that Dean does seem out in left field on this one.
    Does anyone remember the Duke Lacrosse team? Can Dean show us how that was unbiased reporting? I think not. I know not.
    I could go on and on with examples of completely one-sided, left-leaning, stupid, idiotic reporting, but that one example says it all. These people are nuts. And look where they come from…U of O, for example. Taught by the left, they come out so left-leaning they can hardly walk.
    Dean – you really need to get out more often. You seem like a seminar writer. No matter what anyone says or no matter the facts, you just go on and on about how things can’t really be as they are.
    What about Dan Rather???? What about the exploding car that was faked for the TV news??? Do you even watch the news? If you did you would know these left-wing wack job buffoons who call themselves journalists are nothing more than has-been writers who slant everything they write. Is the Oregonian losing readership and ad revenue because they are doing such a great job???? Luckily for us the marketplace is putting the value on the Oregonian and it is going down, down, down, down. What will these intrepid “journalists” do when they are out of work? The Oregonian sure won’t be there to help them. Maybe they could put out their own newspaper. I am sure people would pay a lot to read it. They are losing it each and every day. Decline, decline, decline, which is actually just fine.
    I just hope I can survive without them….it will be tough.

    And, no Dean, I DO NOT depend on “journalists” for anything. You might, but I don’t.
    It is scary to think that you depend on others so you know how to think. How sad. How very sad indeed.
    And you are sure right about people with liberal arts degrees. They are not only unmarketable (who wants to hire someone who only sees things in gray?) but they are only getting jobs teaching. Not DOING anything.
    How fun.
    How rewarding.
    How terribly exciting.

    By the way, we should all be ashamed of ourselves, as writing about stuff doesn’t change ANYTHING. We should be doing things, not writing about them. I am ashamed of myself on this count. What a bunch of pathetic losers we are all if we think what we write here means anything to anyone. It does not. It never will. It never has.
    Sad indeed!!

    Must go now. I need to read the Oregonian so I will know how and what to think.
    I sure am glad they are there for me.

  • Sorta sensible Carl

    1. One thing that the administration does not mention it that Iran appears to have figured out that it’s no longer in their interests to prolong our stay in Iraq and has pulled in the reins on funding insurgents. How much is the surge doing and how much is a result of Iran’s change in policy? Why should Iran postpone their ultimate victory? They’ve been smarter than the administration at almost every turn.
    2. The Dems look in a better position all the time. Most recently with economic projections for 08.
    3. Hollywood is Hollywood. They go where the money is. People buy crap, they’ll sell crap.
    4. Iran is Iran. They’ll lie and cheat and support terror until we negotiate a settlement to our differences with carrots AND sticks. I suspect there is a back door deal with their diminished support of violent Shiite elements similar deal with the Russian missiles in Cuba and US missiles in Turkey. IE. We’ll get out, just give us a break here.
    5. Pakistan is a problem because it’s so volatile and unpredictable and our intell is so crappy. What’s changed with Butto’s death? Nada.
    6. Global warming is like abortion. People believe what they believe. Science seems to be irrelevant.
    7. Hillary is going to lose. Sooner or later.
    8. Economy is about to go into recession according to consensus. Regardless of over all gains and losses, a recession in 08 will mean democratic landslides.
    9. Pop culture has always been garbage.

  • CRAWDUDE

    I agree wholeheartedly with #1, I think #8 has a chance of coming true but with the democratically controlled congress so unpopular there’s a good chance at the status quo being maintained.

    As for the Global Warming, it would appear that both sides use the scientific conclusions that support their views, and ignore those that don’t.

    DEAN! Al Franken? Have you ever listened to this guy? He is the worst comedian there has ever been, liberal humor just ain’t funny I guess. He doesn’t have a chance which is why the democrats threw the former mayor of Duluth into the primaries against him, hoping he’ll knock him out. Lol! The DNC doesn’t want to support him in the election but will have no choice since they allowed him to drone on to the 3 people in the country that listened to his show on the now defunct “Air America” liberal radio station that failed miserably.

    If he runs about Coleman I’m not worried, it actually help the other midwest candidates against their liberal opponents by quoting Frankens laughomatic, inane comments.

    I know you were one of the 3 people that listened to his radio show Carl 😉

    • dean

      Jerry…I get most of my “news” from NPR, PBS, the Oregonian, and national and international papers & mags I read on line. I form my own opinions.

      Yes, every major print newspaper is in decline as they adjust to the internet world. But the O is not going out of business any time soon. Even with readership decline all the major papers are quite profitable, just not at a rate high enough to make investors happy. Remaining local papers will remodel themselves as our major source of city, state, and regional news and leave the national and international reporting to others. Eventually they will learn how to make money by using local reporters as stringers and through internet fees or ads. Some will switch to a non-profit model, which has worked very well for NPR.

      I’m not saying reporters are always accurate or are unbiased. I’m saying that news REPORTING, the day to day gathering of stories, is generally done within a professional framework of objectivity. My son was the editor for his high school paper and studied journalism. He is as biased (way left of me) as can be, but learned how to set his own bias aside when he was researching and writing a story. This is what all professional journaists learn in schools from their “left-wing” professors.

      We (news consumers) bring our own bias to what we choose to read or watch and how we interpret the way the news is reported. News organizations are at fault if they fail to clearly separate the delivery of AP style (just the facts) reporting from deeper analysis and opinion.

      If I reported that there is now a consensus among a large majority of climate scientists, science journals, and major science organizations that the earth is warming. and that a primary cause is fossil fuel burning by people, and I provided my sources for this story, even though this is a factual report you would read it as “biased.” If I reported the story as “some scientsts say global warming is real while others dispute this,” and provided no sources at all that would also be “factual,” and you might like that way of saying it better, but I would say the first is more accurate because it is sourced, while the second implies there is some sort of equality between those who interpret the data one way versus the other. We all tend to believe stories that reinforce our own prejudice and reject stories that challenge us.

      The job of reporters is to get at the truth. They have to do this from a position of being generalists, of having limited budgets and time, and by having to know who they can trust as sources. Credibility is crucial. Your Duke example is a good one. Reporters in that case appear to have overly relied on the prosecuter’s version of the story, repeated it, and “sensationalized” it to feed the beast that is the public appetite for sordid, tabloid material.

      Much reporting is sloppy, lazy, deadline driven crap. I’ve been guilty of this on occasion myself when I had a deadline, was too busy with other work, and took the easy way. But this is not what is taught in school, and it is not what our best reporters do.

      I take strong issue with you that writing is not real work, or that it is not important and does not change anything. The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King’s Notes from a Birmingham Jail, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Smith’s the Wealth of Nations, the Bible, and the Koran all changed the world. And in journalism, Woodward and Bernstein’s investigation of the Watergate burglary, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and I would add John Burns (New York Times) brave reporting from Iraq as writings that have informed us and lifted us up.

      Jerry, I don’t depend on others for “how to think.” I do depend on others to help keep me informed, because I don’t have the time or resources to go out and gather up the news on my own, and neither do you. You are mixing apples and oranges if you think following the news is the same as succumbing to propaganda.

      And Sally…I disagree with you on the nature of journalism and reporting. What becomes the news is a complex dance between a number of things. If Portland decides to build a tram between OHSU and the River and a reporter with the city hall beat decides it is not news, then a PR person for the city would probably call the editor of the paper and suggest that it is news and they should run a story, and the editor would probably agree. If the project later has serious cost overruns, the reporter may think this is news while the PR person would rather it not be. Again, the editor gets to make the call. Ultimately the reader is the judge of what gets paid for and read, and “the market” will determine whether we know more about the Blazers, Briteny Spears, or an assasination in Pakistan.

      A dog biting a man as they say, is not news, but a man biting a dog is.

      But yes, I was being partly facetious. Graduates of more technical programs (like my own landscape architecture students) are also occasionally good writers, but as a general rule they are not.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Do they need any practice? My yard has about had it, lol!

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, again we find an area of agreement. Writing is “real work,” and good writing can make a difference, and some writing has indeed changed the world.

    • Slightly Sensible Carl

      Re: Franken.

      I do think he’s funny. I especially like the way he chumps the conservatives. But I don’t listen to any of that stuff. I used to listen to Rush when I was tired so as to get my blood flowing. But all the mainstream media lacks a certain Je ne sais qua, that’s French for WTF?. It’s so dumbed down not to mention ill informed. BTW Air America does pretty well in the PDX market. Your point about warming was the point I was trying to make. You did it better. So what.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Only you could think Franken is funny! Lol,lol!

      • Bad Boy Brown

        Carl – Give it up on Air America. Outside of Portland, San Francisco, LA and New York, it’s on life support. The Arbitron ratings outside these markets are a joke. That’s why even in liberal Eugene and major cities like Philadelphia they have pulled the plug.

  • Jerry

    Dean – thanks for admitting that so many of these “reporters” are lazy and sloppy. I have found that to be true more often than not.
    By the way, if the Oregonian is so profitable, as you assert, why then are the journalists underpaid, as you also assert??
    That doesn’t seem right for them to keep all the money and not give a lot of it to the hardworking, professional journalists who are doing so much every day to change our lives.

    I hope our writing does mattter. Maybe my idea of the bike tax credit will actually come to pass. It should, as it is a wonderful idea.

    • dean

      Jerry…I don’t know how many proportionally are lazy or sloppy. I do know not all stories are well reported, and that is in part due to differing talent or commitment. On the whole, print journalism is far superior to TV journalism, including cable but excluding PBS. You mentioned Rather earlier. I gave up on network TV news 2 decades ago. It is basically entertainment, not journalism. Dan Rather was once a great reporter who waded deeply into war zones for stories at great physical risk. But TV anchors are essentially dramatic characters who read the reports of others,and in the end that is what he became. Ted Koppel by contrast has gone back to being an actual reporter and is now doing great analytical journalism for Discovery and NPR.

      I don’t know the Oregonian’s specific profit picture. Generally city newspapers are profitable, but profits are declining along with readership and advertising revenues so costs are being cut to keep investors happy. Journalist salaries are pretty low compared to other professions with comparable education requirements. Per word (piece) rates for freelancers have been static for a number of years. Its not an easy way to make a living.

      I know you are cynical about reporters and journalism and their role in society. But spend some time researching democratic versus dictatorship countries and take a look at who has a free press and who does not. Putin has wasted no time clamping down on the press in Russia, China has a state run press, and there is no free press at all in Arab nations except Dubai. If the press is of no importance, why is that the case?

      CD…my students don’t tend to do yard work. I suggest you hire a gardener, get your place tiddied up, then sell and buy a condo in the Pearl where you can experience why the liberal life is superior.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Touche’ you rascal!

  • Henry

    Dean,
    You’re a piece of work.
    Your summary of Gloabl Warming science is the entirely canned and closed minded view echoed by every ASl Gore wanna be.
    You left the last GW thread chanting the same things without any focus on the substance of the science as portrayed by both sides.
    Your pretense that the “denier” scientists are few and only challenge some aspects of global warming demonstrates your ignorance about Global Warming science as it is used by both sides.
    Brushing off the oppostion as “recyled crap that has been shown to be wrong for years” further demonstrtates your tremendous dishonesty.
    In reality the identical science is utilized by both sides. Measurements from ice core samles, snow packs, oceans, atmosphere and many others.
    The mixing and distorting by mixing scientific measurements and analysis with a political ideology has been happening on the Al Gore front.
    And it is easy for nearly anyone to see and understand for themselves by viewing any number of presentations.
    Presentations which show the very science the IPCC uses along with the rest of the data. It’s not too complicated to easily get it.
    Your deliberate avoidance of the entire current science makes you
    a bellowing fool.

  • Jerry

    Right on, right on Henry.
    If this Dean guy lived anywhere in the midwest or northeast he would not be thinking global warming. They are setting records for cold and snow left and right!!!!
    Dean – I know that a free press is a good thing. I just don’t want a left wing free press, which is exactly what we have.
    I, too, refuse to EVER watch any network news of any kind except for Fox, which I have found to truly be fair and balanced.
    They report, I decide.
    Not on CBS, NBC, or ABC though. Most assuredly NOT.

    • dean

      Jerry…”this guy Dean’ grew up in the Midwest, went to college in Iowa and experienced 30 below with 30 MPH winds. Winter was cold back then, is still cold, and will remain cold even with an average global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees so far and more on the way. 30 below or 25 below, either way it makes yer nippers crispy.

      Fox news? That figures. Do they ever send any actual reporters out anywhere to gather up any actual news? Or do they just “report” and let you decide. Fox is telling you what you want to hear, so they are an accurate source. You have made my case with respect to reader/listener bias being the real story. We all want to think we are smart and right, so we gravitate to media that reinforce our bias.

      Henry…not you again! I feel like Inspector Clousseau being unsuspectingly jumped by his trusty Cato! For the record, I don’t want to be Al Gore, though I would take some of his money if he offered it.

      The problem Henry is that your side of the GW argument has so little substance. I believe your source is the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, am I right? Their petition, signed by many non-climate non-scientists like doctors, computer programmers, and engineers, is indeed recycled crap that can’t get to first base in the climate science arena. It is not “the identical science.” It deliberately misinterprets or errs in every event. It is not peer reviewed. And the main “brains” behind the renterpretation of climate data, Dennis Avery and Fred Singer have been thouroughly debunked by others. Avery is a shill for agribuisiness, trained in economics, not climate science. He has also attempted to demonstrate the great harm organic agriculture does to the planet by the way.

      Fred Singer is an actual scientist (physics), but basically is deep in the pocket of Exxon and the tobacco companies. His work has zero credibility among his science peers, though I expect he is laughing at them and us all the way to the bank.

      You are being manipulated my friend. I can’t help you. But like I said before, I hope you and Avery and Singer and all those petition signers are right. That the earth is not really warming, but if it is we can benefit by investing in beachfront property in Iowa. For now I the bellowing fool that I am will continue to go with the flow of the peer reviewed, published in the appropriate journals evidence.

  • Henry

    Dean,
    You are indeed a complete ass.

    Your problem is it is impossible to get you to stay focused, understand and respond to the central and most germnane points.

    For instance, the scientific substance of the dispute. Which is the same measurements, datat and graphs used by the IPCC and Al Gore.
    Try and follow me here pal.
    Your claim that my “side of the GW argument has so little substance” is absurd since they have the same “substance” as the IPCC. But my side doesn’t carve it up and throw away what doesn’t fit the contrived pandamonium.
    If you ever bothered to actually look at the core data offered by both sides and see how my side offers the complete and unmanipulated comparision you would know this too.
    But then you probably already know this but choose to continue lying.
    Then, while further diverting away from the science, you claim my “source is the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine” and ask “am I right?”
    No you are not right. That’s merely the latest of many and you avoid the sciecne found there and why so many people from every state signed the petition.
    The video, power point and written presentation of the core science by this organization is crystal clear. Like other across the globe who have compiled the comparative science and exposed YOUR side for what it is. Science corruptors and political hacks.
    It is also peer reviewed and published like many other climate experts.
    There are abundant sources for the whole scientific picture and you know it by now. So I’ll call you a liar.
    This particular petition is signed by over 19,000 Phds and alike, many of which are experts in climate or climate related fields.
    Much like the IPCC.
    So that other canard you bellowed out about non-climate non-scientists is just more of your deliberate misrepresentations.

    Calling the science in the oppostion recycled crap is ignorance beyond honesty.
    It is the identical science. From NAS, NOAA, NASA and all the other sources YOU trust.
    Anyone who views the comparision can easily recognize who is distorting and manipulating and who is not.
    Simply look at the graphs and projections Al Gore makes and look at the whole graphs he took his pieces from.
    That’s what skeptical climate experts have been doing and what you are avoiding.
    The presentations below detail most of the more aggregious Gore distortion.
    There are other climate scientists and groups who have compiled similar presentations. All of which make clear the bigger and more honest picture.
    Your dishonest spin on where the opposition comes from is disgusting.
    On these links is a letter from the past president of the NAS, National Academy of Sciences. Hardly a crackpot.
    But you are so full of crap you can’t think honestly.

    Go here
    https://www.oism.org/pproject/
    Be sure and take a look at the over 19,000 signatories linked on the left collumn.

    https://www.oism.org/pproject/
    scroll down to click and see the letter from the past president of the National Academy of Sciences.

    scroll down to Click and see this peer reviewed research paper.
    Look at the avaible easy to wacth short videos and power point presentations.

    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

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

    Look at the “REFERENCES” at the bottom of the written report and note the NASA and NOAA
    etc.

  • Henry

    Here’s exactly what Dean does.

    https://www.energyadvocate.com/petiproj.htm

    “The National Academy of Sciences has objected strenuously to the format of the paper, on the grounds that the Petition Project deliberately used the NAS Proceedings format to create the impression that the NAS was involved. However, the Proceedings format has headers and footers clearly identifying the publication; the circulated paper contained no suggestion at all that it was associated with the NAS.

    Of course, the NAS has no copyright on the two-column format (Summary section first, in bold type _), but it is useful to look through the smoke screen to find what is missing. Here is the vaunted National Academy of Sciences complaining about the format of the paper, without a whisper about the content of the paper. JUST LIKE DEAN
    (Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman was elected to the Academy, but resigned after he went to meetings and found out their main activity was to discuss who should be allowed to join such a fine group.)

    Another complaint lodged against the petition was that it has allegedly been signed by a lot of non-existent people. The objection was even echoed in the weather column (Dr. Mel Goldstein, Hartford Courant, 5/2/98): “Michael J. Fox, Spice Girl Geraldine Haliwell, and John Grisham, maybe, but Perry Mason? These are names that surfaced _” The joke’s on Dr. Mel. Perry Mason, Ph.D., a chemist in Lubbock, Texas, signed the petition [Access to Energy, May, 1998]. While it would be downright dishonest to put phony names like Geraldine Haliwell or to forge real ones on such a petition, such activity seems to have been limited to those wishing to discredit the project.

    Note the double smoke screen. First, there are probably a handful of phony names on the petition, but there would have to be 13,500 phony signatures to reduce the number to the inflated “consensus of 2500” claimed by the White House. More importantly, the scientific argument is entirely ignored. That is even more dishonest than submitting phony names to discredit the effort.

  • Henry

    Some 16,000 scientists, two thirds of whom have advanced degrees, including over 6000 with Ph.D.s in science, have signed a petition that states,
    “We urge the United States to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997 _ There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide _ will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere _”
    The petition was circulated along with an unpublished article, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” by Arthur R. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, Arthur’s son, who has a B.S. in chemistry. All others are widely published Ph.D.s (Zachary’s degree may not be advanced, but he has taken more courses in science than Al Gore and Bill Clinton put together.) The article makes no pretense of being original, as it is a review with 66 references, mostly papers published in refereed journals. (The article and petition are available from: Petition Project, PO Box 1925, La Jolla, CA 92038-1925.)
    Accompanying the petition and article was a brief letter from Dr. Frederick F. Seitz, past president of the Academy of Sciences, and a mechanism for identifying the signer’s academic credentials: “My academic degree is B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in the field of __________” from which the statistics given above were collected. Readers can find the list of signers on the web at https://www.oism.org/pproject/.

  • Jerry

    Dean – you are sure muddled on the warming, as these guys have pointed out.

    I now know what is wrong. You went to Iowa. I went to THE Ohio State University.

    I think that explains everything!
    GO BUCKS!

    • dean

      Jerry…maybe that is the root of all our differences. Go Cyclones!

      On GW…If NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, and virtually every science organization in the world that deals with climate cannot convince you guys, I realize it is far past my abilities to do so.

      The campaign to discredit the body of evidence that has nevertheless convinced the vast majority of climate scientists, nearly every government in the world, and finally 75% of your fellow Americans that GW is happening, that it is largely a result of fossil fuel burning, and that it is past time to address the problem has been unfortunately very effective. It dates back to 1988 when James Hansen from NASA told Congress that GW was documented and could become a serious problem that should be dealt with soon, and that there was an emerging scientific consensus on this.

      Right away the industries that would be most affected by any efforts to reduce fossil fuels: oil, gas, auto makers, and utilities got together and formed the “Global Climate Coalition” and the “Information Council on the Environment.” They took a page right out of the playbook of the tobacco companies and developed a strategy to muddy the waters by putting forth counter information and their own “experts” to create a cloud of uncertainty in the hopes this would delay meaningful action.

      Know what? It worked. It is still working. And you guys have fallen for it.

      The world of science has developed methods for sorting out the truth from mere opinion. It is imperfect, ponderous, complicated, and sometimes obtuse to we non-scientists. But it works. Scientists pose questions, they conduct experiments to gather data and test they hypotheses, and they try and publish the results. Other scientists check their work for flaws, and if they find them submit their own counter analyses for peer review by still more scientists. Gradually what is true and not true, or at least what is the best explanation emerges.

      In the case of global warming, the data, the analysis and the explanations are crystal clear to the vast majority of climate scientists. Yes, there are unresolved questions, particularly how fast the world will warm under various carbon accumulation scenarios. How fast will sea levels rise, how will plants and animals adjust, what can we do to slow things down or change course, and so forth.

      The Oregon petition as it was first known, is a creature of a few scientists paid by Exxon, circulated widely to doctors, mathmeticians, computer scientists, and geologists. It is a farce, intended to confuse and obfuscate. The signers, even those who have some expertise in climate science, have conducted ZERO original research. The vast majority have no background in climate science.

      Patrick Michaels, one of the few actual climate scientists behind this effort, was paid $165,000 by industry to write articles and go on news shows expressing doubt about global warming. Easy money. Thre is a cottage industry of so called scientists writing “white papers” criticizing the work of the actual scientists, being paid by right-wing “think tanks” funded by industry.

      The “left-wing media,” as you like to call them Jerry, fell for it hook line and sinker. They wanted to seem objective so for years have done “he said she said” journalism on global warming, always having a skeptic for an interview ready to refute the latest research finding. Industry knows all they have to do is trot out a seemingly official report by any PhD and get it to a friendly Republican in Congress to delay hard targets on fossil fuel reduction. They are real good at this. They ran ads criticizing the science right before key committee votes. Fred Singer has been very effective at spreading disinformation simply by questioning the motivations of his fellow scientists.

      They also managed to get ex American Petrolium Institute executives into high positions in the Bush Administration, where they could re-write EPA reports that confirmed the science on global warming to make it appear there was still doubt where there wasn’t any.

      You can tell the anti-global warming machine is a phony creature very simply. Follow their arguments. Basically it is thus:

      Global warming is not happening, or we can’t be sure because the measurements are questionable. And if it is happening it has nothing to do with increased carbon, it must be part of a natural cycle. And if it is increassed carbon that is the cause, warming will be good for us. And if it isn’t good, anyway it is too expensive to fix it. And now…even if we can fix it economically, we shouldn’t because that would mean more BIG GOVERNMENT.

      Now I ask you, as 2 reasonably intelligent people, why would contrary arguments segue so neatly from one to the next without missing a beat, and largely from the same people? It defies logic. It is all about delaying action, because it is going to cost certain individuals invested in certain industries money. That is the story.

      The basic problem Henry and Jerry, is that reality is what it is. The temperature measurements are piling up, the carbon dioxide is building up, the ice sheets are melting faster, the sea levels are rising, animals are changing their migration times and patterns. All of this just keeps happening before our eyes and under our feet. Singer, Michaels, Seitz, and the rest of them….I don’t know how they sleep at night or face their grandkids to tell the truth. You could not pay me enough to do what they are doing.

      So….go ahead, remain doubters, make fun of Al Gore, use your search engine to dig up and trot out the same contrarian garbage over and again, call Dean every name you can think of. But reality is a relentless and cruel teacher in the end.

      And Henry, why would the National Academy of Sciences object to the unpublished paper that accompanied the Petition Project if they thought it had any merit?

      I recommend https://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/output/print for a good summary fo the game that is being played on you.

  • Henry

    Once again Dean avoids reviewing the simple comparison of the same science used by both sides.

    That avoidance allows him to cling to the periphery rhetoric and spin.
    It’s not that “the measurements are questionable”.
    It’s how Al Gore and the IPCC are deliberately using only segments of the known measurements and science in order to make claims which the greater measurements and science does indicate or support.

    But Dean prefers everyone not bother with such details.

    Details that indicate strongly that human increased carbon has nothing to do with any warming and that the warming underway is not even unusual, extraordinary or alarming.

    Of course much in the way of massive government programs and the large environmental cottage industries are depending on Human Global Warming being the justification.
    Of course it means more BIG GOVERNMENT.
    Look at our own state alone. We have an overlfow amount of agencies, programs and policies all aimed at the sustainablility agenda.

    Dean is certifiably dishonest, delusional and lacking basic logic whihc wouldpropell most people to check out the readily avaiable science.
    Instead he fabricates all sorts of angles and declares “It is all about delaying action”.

    Oh really Dean? And who did you run that by or interview or talk to or anything else? No one. You just made it up.

    That is your story.

    The basic problem Dean is you refuse to look at the very temperature measurements you know to be piling up.
    I have and they don’t in any way point to the IPCC forecast. That’s why there are so many people objecting.
    eople lik
    If you looked at the broader measurements outside of the IPCC segments and saw the comp[arisions you would know that the ice sheets are NOT melting faster than many previous times, that sea levels are NOT rising at any scary or out of the ordinary pace, that animals have often changed their migration times and patterns and will for yeons to come.
    Your mind has been hijacked with this notion that “All of this just keeps happening before our eyes and under our feet”.

    You’re living in denial if you don’t think honest climate experts
    are not speaking out with sceince supported contradictions.

    It is you who is the doubter and you make no effort to validate what you believe.
    So, you, go ahead, remain a doubter. But anyone, and more do every day, can look for themselves at the very simple science and presentations coming form climate experts all over the world.

    The fact that you have yet to comment on any any of the content of the presentations speaks loudly.

    But you’ve made up your own reality.

    And Dean, why ask me “why would the National Academy of Sciences object to the unpublished paper that accompanied the Petition Project if they thought it had any merit?”
    When I just posted the answer. Are you not able to comprehend?

    Go back and look at the report, the content, the science and the letter from the former president of the NAS.

    Never mind, here it is.

    Letter from Frederick Seitz

    Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

    Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.
    The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

    This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

    The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

    It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

    We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

    Frederick Seitz
    Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
    President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

    • dean

      The conclusions reached by the IPCC have been endorsed by the following international and national scientific bodies:

      Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
      Royal Society of Canada
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Academié des Sciences (France)
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
      Indian National Science Academy
      Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
      Science Council of Japan
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society (United Kingdom)
      National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
      Australian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Irish Academy
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia
      Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

      In addition to these national academies, all the major institutions that specialize in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions:

      NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
      National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
      State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
      Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
      Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
      American Geophysical Union (AGU)
      American Institute of Physics (AIP)
      National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
      American Meteorological Society (AMS)
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

      No Henry…I have not on my own attempted to compare the conclusions that the above esteemed organizations have drawn from climate data with the counter conclusions of Steiz and his “colleagues.” I’m not interested in playing scientist, or in trying to conclude whose line on which graph is the more accurate. I’m not qualified to do that. I am a sensible person however. If Steiz can convince the above organizations he is right, then great. So far he has struck out. He is zero for 10 years of trying.

      Read Steiz’s own words: “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

      And it is touching that Steiz and his backers at Exxon are only raising these questions because of the harm that might be done to poor people in the 3rd world if the United States takes steps to burn less than the 25% of the world’s fossil fuel supply that we are presently using up.

      Yes Henry…I am “certifiably dishonest, delusional and lacking basic logic.” Me, and all of those organizations listed above. You on the other hand, speak truth and are entirely rational. Descartes was also entirely rational, yet he could not be sure of anything except that he could think, therefore he was. Doubt is our constant companion.

      You seem to think we are having and argument or debate that could somehow settle this issue. We aren’t, and we can’t. Every candidate running for president save Ron Paul has accepted reality on global warming Henry. Even George Bush, bless his heart, has accepted reality at long last, though he still waffles on meaningful action. The stalling tactics of the fossil fuel industry did the job. Chevron, BP, GM, Ford, and most major utilities bought themselves some time to shift their investments into renewable energy and more efficient delivery systems. Exxon is the last holdout, this flim flam game is drawing to a close, and the world is ready to move into a multi-front effort to gradually withdraw from fossil fuels. That is reality. You, Matt Weingard, Rush Limbaugh, and your steadily diminishing number of flat earthers can accept it or continue to rage against it. I don’t care Henry. What you or I think doesn’t really matter at this point.

      Turn the heat up, open your windows, drive the least efficient gas hog you can find, and don’t forget to thank the troops for their sacrifice Henry.

  • Henry

    Dean,
    Your Newsweek piece is a political hack-opinion piece without any scientific content. Just opinions and wild claims.

    >”Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries.”

    I bet you didn’t even wonder how many of them are climate scientists. And green groups? Oh brother.

    >”now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies.”

    What a load of bull. Nothing curious there for old Dean the faithful.

    This piece is all Deanspeak. No wonder he talks like that.

    >”Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with “the overwhelming science out there, the deniers’ days were numbered.”

    All the recent work comes from analyzing the latest and complete IPPC science, but Oh yeah Barbara Boxer figured it doesn’t matter.

    Then comes the Deanspeak about
    “> A staffer told her about a conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. “I realized,” says Boxer, “there was a movement behind this that just wasn’t giving up.”

    Wow a rumor from a staffer!!!!

    Pretty impressive Dean. No wonder you are so naive.

    Or how about that
    >”19 million people watched the “Live Earth” concerts last month”

    Now there’s some science we can all plunge our brains into.

    >”Al Gore’s best-selling book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Oscar.

    That’s not even funny any more.

    >”well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.

    There’s nothing like the funding for the GW fraud while there are many experts, getting no payment, who are contradicting the IPCC.

    >”They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,”

    Now that still is funny since the IPCC’s own science is being used against them. Far different than the tobacco battles.
    So there is no similarity or pattern ing of the GW contradiction after the Tobacco industry.

    But again there is no science in that pitch either. Just concocted tainting of the messengers.

    Then we’re supposed to be impressed because good old wise
    >”Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world’s economies—are altering climate.”

    Not for long. If you bothered keeping up you would know of the growing expert opposition there as well.
    At some point your dishonest side will need to come up with new whoppers other than the denial experts being bought off.

    As a result of the clarifying of the science by experts, all the recent demand about addressing climate change will hopefully result in few of the policies being enacted.
    Despite the Deans out here propagandizing.

    Like echoing this nonsense,
    >”It was 98 degrees in Washington on Thursday, June 23, 1988, and climate change was bursting into public consciousness. The Amazon was burning, wildfires raged in the United States, crops in the Midwest were scorched and it was shaping up to be the hottest year on record worldwide.

    It wasn’t.

    >” They “settled on the ‘science isn’t there’ argument because they didn’t believe they’d be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real,”

    There is no “they” deciding how to convince the public.

    The complete science speaks for itself and like Dean, this article addresses none of it.

    >”There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided,” says Dan Becker of the Sierra Club.

    Oh boy now that’s rich. The Sierra Club characterizing the denial machine.

    Since the science backs up this
    >”Talk radio goes further, with Rush Limbaugh telling listeners this year that “more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not likely to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. It’s just all part of the hoax.”

    Good thing the public is getting it.
    >In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, 42 percent said the press “exaggerates the threat of climate change.”

    This was good and accurate though,

    >”Just months after the Academy report, Singer told a Senate panel that “the Earth’s atmosphere is not warming and fears about human-induced storms, sea-level rise and other disasters are misplaced.” And as studies fingering humans as a cause of climate change piled up, [nonsense] he had a new argument: a cabal was silencing good scientists who disagreed with the “alarmist” reports. “Global warming has become an article of faith for many, with its own theology and orthodoxy,” Singer wrote in The Washington Times. “Its believers are quite fearful of any scientific dissent.”

    >”George W. Bush,,,the denial machine,,,, Bush’s oil-patch roots, naysayers,,, the IPCC released its third assessment of the burgeoning studies of climate change,,,weather itself seemed to be conspiring against the skeptics,,,, The early years of the new millennium were setting heat records,, the public didn’t notice. To most civilians, a scientist is a scientist,,, (in a study partly underwritten with $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute),,,, “They’d bring up how the science wasn’t certain, how there were a lot of skeptics out there.” It went down to defeat again,,,,Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine’s campaign.

    Oh yes the denial machine and the American Petroleum Institute. That’s where all the opposing science comes from Dean.
    That and
    >”offering $10,000 to scientists willing to attack the report, which so angered Boxer,

    She heard it from a staffer. Imagine how angered she must have been.

    “>Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much.

    Good. Maybe there’s hope.

    >”The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that.

    Especially when the science behind the IPCC report and Al’s agenda is shown, by climate experts, to be distorted and wrong.

    Yes, Dean your refusal to look at the comparative use of the same science does make you “certifiably dishonest, delusional and lacking basic logic.”

    For the number of reputable, expert, non exxon scientists who debunk the IPCC Al Gore fraud is growing while you hide from the truth.

  • Jerry

    Henry – you are right. These pathetic losers who listen to whatever this disgraced, do-nothing VP says, are simply just followers looking for a cause so they can add meaning to their pathetically unimportant lives.

    Then they can feel good because they are doing something.

    What rubbish.

    By the way, if they truly cared about our environment they would back my plan to give a tax credit to anyone who buys a bike. Sadly, that would actually take work on their part and they wouldn’t feel so good huffing and puffing around town, so it is easier for them to just follow along blindly while it snows in Daytona Beach!!!

    The utter senselessness of it all boggles the mind.

  • Henry

    Anyone with a public high school education can grasp the Global warming hoax by watching this presentation by climate experts. It’s in fours parts but still short, interesting and easy to understand.

    Dean, of course, leans on the fact that it is posted on YouTube in order to ignore the content and avoid all evidence of Gore’s fraud.

    Go watch the whole science and pay particular attention to how the IPCC uses carefully selected segments to indicate false trends.

    Unlike Dean’s propaganda, I don’t want anyone to be pursuaded by me or my “denial machine” 🙂
    Just look at the facts in this 4 part video.

    youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
    youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
    youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
    youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

    Dean has either refused to view them or is deliberatley ignoring the content. Even though it’s the complete science he trusts.

    Hypocrite Dean no doubt is a champion for current intelligence when it comes to Iraqi WMDs. On Global Warming not so much.
    No he’s instead quoting “climate expert” Nancy Pellosi and the impartial Sierra Club.
    He might as well be peddling “Inconvenient Truth” as if it’s a new film. His having bought evey Gore claim in “documentary”, Dean must feel good about living a few 100 feet above sea level.

    • dean

      Fact checking Henry:
      1) True…I’m not interested in getting my global warming interpretations off of youtube from “scientists” paid by Exxon who can’t get their work accepted by their peers.
      2) youtube represents the “whole science?” And in 4 short parts? Facinating. Maybe I should watch it after all.
      3) Iraqi WMDs? Did I miss something while dueling with Henry?
      4) I quoted Nancy Pellosi or referred to her as a climate expert?
      5) I quoted the Sierra Cub? Where exactly?
      6) I have not seen Al’s film, nor have I recommended it to anyone.
      6) I live 600 feet above sea level.

      Henry…do you ever get tired of just making stuff up? Try reality for just a day and see what happens. You might find it enjoyable.

      And remember folks, global warming is a hoax, made up by thousands of scientists from all over the world just so they can get mroe research money. And even if they are right and the world is warming, it has nothing at all to do with fossil fuel burning. And even if it does so what? All that carbon is good for us. And even if it isn’t good for us it is too expensive to do anything about. And even if it isn’t too expensive, do you trust “big government” to fix this problem?

      Just keep repeating the above to yourselves over and over and over and vote for Ron Paul.

  • Henry

    What Dean,
    You didn’t even read the Newsweek piece you suggested I read?
    That’s where Pellosi and Sierra Club are.
    And you haven’t seen Gore’s film?

    So you don’t watch or read anything?

    Pefect.

    The video you refuse to watch is not a “youtube from “scientists” paid by Exxon who can’t get their work accepted by their peers”

    They are independent climate experts, recieving no Exxon money and their work is not only being accepted by their peers but added to it as more of the Hoax is exposed.

    It is you who keeps making things up.

    I’ll advise everyone to just watch what Dean refuses.
    Even watch Gore’s film. Look at the IPCC material.
    Look at it all.

    But there is no doubt you’ll see how Dean is confused after watching these short videos.

    youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
    youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
    youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
    youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

    • dean

      Yes Henry, I read the article I suggested to you. Apparently by your logic if I direct you to an article that means I quoted someone who was quoted in that article. And no, I haven’t seen Al’s film nor have I read his book. Did I miss something important? And does this, again by your logic, mean I “don’t read anything?”

      By the way, the “book” did not win an Oscar. They don’t give Oscars for books, but do give them for scripts. I must have read that somewhere.

      Like I said Henry…in science truth always wins in the end. If your non Exxon funded critique holds up, we can all breathe easy and finish burning up the last of the oil just as fast as we please. If not and until then, lets start making the transition away from fossil fuels we will need to make in either case.

      And Henry, if the video is not a youtube, why do all your links say youtube?

      • dean

        Added note: the price of a barrel of oil topped $100 today for the first time ever.

        Exxon is very happy Henry. With even more available to pay contrarians. Should be fun to watch.

  • Henry

    Dean, forever lingering on the irrelevant and petty while waltzing past the germane.

    Ok petty one, yeah the Gore movie, not the book won an Oscar,, so what’s your point? . Did I say the book won the Oscar?

    I don’t know what your assinine and petty hang up is with something being parked at a youtube to access. But that’s another one of your irrelevant points. Who cares where somethihng is parked.
    You’ve spend more time yammering about nothing than it would have taken to go watch the whol;e 10 or so minutes.

    • dean

      Henry…I don’t have a hang up with youtube. What I have a hangup with is a group of “scientists” who do no research on climate and can’t get their work acknowledged through the accepted peer reviewed scientific process and can’t make any headway with reputable scientific organizations, use industry funds and popular media to confuse the public into thinking there is a meaningful dispute with respect to the science on global warming by cherry picking bits of data or analysis.

      That is the game, you have apparently bought it, and you want to continue to sell it to others. Fine. like I said, reality is what it is.

      Let me pose some questions to you Henry, and you can use your own opinion or the opinions of your allies to answer, but please provide citations of peer reviewed, published work to back up your answers. No youtube this time.

      1: Is the earth warming, yes or no?
      2) Is there evidence of warming in temperature readings, thinning ice sheets, rising sea levels, and melting permafrost?
      3) Is this observed warming a result of rising greenhouse gas concentrations? If not what is the cause?
      4) Is warming a problem for humans and the ecosystems we depend on? If not why not?

      • dean

        Okay Henry…I watched you Professor Bob Carter on youtube. Very impressive presentation. Only one problem. His analysis gets it all very wrong.

        He uses 1998, the hottest year on record to make a point that it hasn’t gotten any hotter since then even though we have 4% more carbon. He says this “disproves” global warming hypothesis. That is pure bunk. Look at the chart he uses. The 10 years prior to 98 were significantly coler than the 10 years after. You can’t measure global temperature changes using a single data point and he knows better. Pure cherry picking.

        He is indeed funded by an Australian subsidiary of Exxon and in interviews dismisses this point. He has no standing in the Austrailian climate science community. His analysis is bunkum and he can’t get it published in a reputable peer reviewed journal.

        He cites the actions of the Austrailian Parliment, the British House of Lords, and the US Senate committee (under Imhoffe no less) as reliable sources that since they are skeptical of climate change, “torpedos” the present warming theory. Right.

        He cites an obscure weatherman and shows a few slides of climate stations to prove that our US temp data is no good, yet NASA has corrected for heat island effects for years. Why bother asking NASA?

        Basically this guy is a 2nd rate non climate scientist who can’t get his analysis accepted by anyone except Henry and the right-wing “think tank,” as if they actually “think,” that he helped create.

        Youtube is the right place for Professor Carter’s work.

        Like I said earlier, these guys are laughing all the way to the bank. Are you also on Exxon’s payroll by the way? What else you got Henry? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry so far.

        If you want the real story, which I doubt, I suggest you spend some time on https://www.realclimate.org/

  • Henry

    Dean,
    What a waste of time you are.
    Every one of your questions are answered in the YouTube video you refuse to view.
    The previous links I posted had peer reviewed published material there but you refused to view that also.

    You’re a loony. You condemned the video because it was on youtube, now you say you have no problem with you tube?

    There are thousands of scientists all around the globe studying Global Warming and finding the IPCC report to be flawed and their projections wrong. That the evidence in temperature readings, ice sheets, snow packs, sea levels, permafrost don’t reflect their claims at all.
    Instead you pretend the oppostion consists only of some oil funded “denial machine” as the Sierrs Club puts it.

    Many reputable scientists and organizations are contradicting the IPCC report and claims. Your problem is you think the only way to be reputable is to agree with the IPCC. 🙂
    All you do is deny good scientists and science are in existence that contradicts the IPCC.

    The only cherry picking is by Al Gore and the IPCC. That’s the whole point here. You can eyewitness the IPCC cherry picking by simply viewing the various video presentations.
    The Australian one on You Tube is very good.
    You can insult the people who present the data all you want but it doesn’t change the data. They aren’t Exxon lackies or anything you have imagined.

    And there is nothing confusing about the data.
    There is far more than a meaningful dispute. You’re just choosing to avoid all of it.
    Nice way to gather a better understanding. Ignore it.

    GW is a hoax.

    Not unlike The Portland Office of Sustainable development concocting their bogus report that Portland had reduced CO2 emissions to 1991 levels by planting trees, light rail and smart grwoth.
    I’m sure bought that and think they are reputable too. Ha.

    But that’s because you want those policies to be expanded and if it takes a hoax about Global Warming so be it.

    • dean

      Henry…the 2500 scientists of the IPCC, which includes the leading climatologists in the world, reviews ALL the PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLSHED data that exists before they come to their conclusions and write their reports. This is the opposite of cherry picking.

      And go ahead, ridicule Portland for actually trying to do something positive.
      $100 a barrel oil. Is that a hoax too? Is the Iraq war a hoax? How about Hurricane Katrina drowning an American city. Was that a hoax? NASA, the National Academy of Science, NOAH, the American Meteorological Society, they have all been duped? Or are they the dupers? Newt Gingrich, Schwarzeneger, McCain…they are all in on it Henry.

      Man…these guys are really good! I’m totally confused now.

      • CRAWDUDE

        So Dean, do you now ascribe to every view Newt and the boys you mentioned have or are you you just agreeing with them this once?

        Are you now pointing out people whose views you believe others will respect, to try to emphasis yours or have you turned a new leaf? I’ve seen you villify the very people you are embracing in earlier posts.

        Were they wrong then or were you?

        If it’s to hot its global warming, if its too cold its global warming, if it rains to much its global warming and if it rains to little its global warming…..which one is it? It’s like trying to prove a negative, it can’t be done…………………….dude, its just natural weather patterns that have been occuring for millions of years, its time to get over our 20,000 year old selves I believe.

        Conserving energy and controling pollution are great ideas…………..but why must they be masked in political opinions?

        Now, I came up with this idea earlier and thought it was pretty good. I think on all new home construction that we should mandate a solar powered booster system be installed in every house. It’s cheaper than after market and would save a lot of energy in my opinion……..what does everyone think?

  • Henry

    Dean,
    Yes you are confused. Finally you admit it.

    Go watch the video and de-confuse yourself.

  • Jerry

    Doesn’t anyone care about my bike purchase tax credit idea? $300 for any bike made in the USA…right off the top of the taxes…whether you ride or not.
    Because people with a new bike will ride….trust me on that….
    Can I get some help here guys to do something that really will matter?
    Thanks.

    • CRAWDUDE

      I like my solar power idea better 🙂

      • dean

        CD…the whole point of global warming as a modern measurable event that has been very clearly tied to increased greenhouse gasses accumulating in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning, tropical deforestation, certain agricultural practices, and other things modern humans are doing, is that this is NOT equivelant to natural fluctuations in climate. If we know this, or at least accept it is highly plausible based on the evidence, and we fail to act we are playing craps with our future. And if we let Exxon funded hacks pull the wool over our eyes we are very naive and probably deserve our fate.

        I don’t know what a solar powered booster system is. But aren’t you against big government mandates on principle? I’m not, so yes, if it works and it is affordable I would go a step further and mandate, or at the least strongly encourage all new homes to be built to accomodate solar energy now or in the near future (i.e. long axis east-west, windows, and roof pitch oriented south).

        As for citing Newt and the others, its true I don’t agree with them on much, and no, I’m not saying global warming theory ought to be accepted because Newt says it is so. I was trying to point out that the denier camp is shrinking, and anyone who still thinks GW is some sort of nefarious left wing environmentalist/communist conspiriacy to force political and economic changes that can’t be otherwise sold to the public is sailing into a gathering head wind.

        Newt is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, just like you and me and even Henry. Nobody has a permanent monopoly on the truth. We all ought to be skeptical of our own certainty, but we also ought to accept the evidence when it is staring us in the face. GW has been at the point for over a decade.

        I don’t agree with your line “if its too hot….etc”. One of the lessons I have tried hard to learn is to be careful attributing a single event to what is a gradual, global climate trend. I violated my own principle in even bringing up Katrina, which may or may not have had anything to do with GW. However, rising sea levels, if they continue at present pace, will doom New Orleans and eventually make many coastal cities around the world uninhabitable, and resetteling hundreds of millions of people from Bangladesh, Florida, the Netherlands, and Washington DC will cost a lot more than switching over to wind, solar, bio-diesel, and perhaps nuclear over the next several decades.

        I watched youtube Henry. Like I said, Dr Carter (a marine geologist, not a climate scientist) has been unable to sell his re-interpretation of other people’s research in the wider climate science world. Until he is able to do so I’ll stay with the more accepted interpretation.

        The best film metaphor I have ever seen for arguing against consensus by the way was Twelve Angry Men. In the original version Henry Fonda was a “liberal” on a jury for a muder trial. He was the only one who had any doubt that the young man on trial might not be guilty. Against all odds, one by one he was able to persuade the other 11 jury members of reasonable doubt in what had seemed a slam dunk case.

        This is the burden Dr Carter and his doubter colleagues have. They need to convince their climate science peers they are right. To the extent they go around or over the heads of their peers they are simply playing a PR game. Al Gore also is doing PR, but at least he is doing so by relying on the accepted scientific interpretation of the available data. Carter is not. If he wants to overturn GW theory he knows the right way to do it. Ask yourself (and him) why he can’t sell it to his colleagues? Is it that you and Senator Imhoffe are easier to fool?

        Jerry…I suspect your proposal is insincere, but nevertheless I totally support it as long as the tax credit is compensated for (i.e. a gas guzzler tax) OR a program’s funding (i.e. the Iraq War) is cut by the same amount of your proposed credit. I’m a liberal in favor of responsible budgeting.

        • Jerry

          Dean – my proposal is NOT insincere. I ride and am proud of it.
          We DO NOT need any offsets to pay for this idea – can’t you figure that out – if more people ride bikes then costs for roads, etc. go DOWN!
          This will work. Please help me with it.
          Thanks.
          Let me know what you can do.

      • carol

        And there is some really great stuff being done with solar power, and we have miles of desert. However I wonder if maybe we can harness some of the rhetoric, (hot air) in these threads, y’all think?

  • Jerry
    • dean

      Jerry…I tried a search on the rush site and nothing came up. There may be an error somewhere in what you sent.

      • dean

        Jerry…I went to Rush’s web site and clicked onto the chart of global temperatures since 1990. I think that is what you wanted me to look at right?

        If yes, I think this is the same chart generally in use by climatologists. What do I think? Well…everyone acknowledges 1998 as the hottest year on record, and it is atributed to an el nino event. 2005, a non el nino year was about as warm or very slightly below. Where one chooses to measure the baseline from is important in understanding how much warming is happening how fast.

        1861 is the year most climate scientists use because it is believed to be the point from which we have had consistent measurements over most of the world. You might look at: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/
        for a graphic comparison of carbon accumulation shown against temperature rise.

        The record shows an average warming at 0.17 degrees C per decade over the past number of decades. I’m not sure what the prediction is for the rate of continued warming, whether it is supposed to accelerate or not. Obviously it partly depends on what we humans choose to do. Believe Rush 9not warming, not attributed to CO2, not a problem anyway,) or believe the main body of climate scientists. Our choice to make.

        Also, it should go without saying that year to year temperature differences are meaningless. It is all about the longer term trends.

  • Jerry

    Yes, Dean, and the longer trends simply show this. The earth warms and cools greatly in cycles. We are always in a cycle. This will continue REGARDLESS of what you or others do or try to do.

    Please help me with my bike idea.

  • Henry

    Dean,
    Your analytical skills are abhorrent. Hobbled by your tremendous bias and total lack of impartiality.

    Of course “year to year temperature differences are meaningless and it is all about the longer term trends.”
    Your thinking that needed to be pointed out to anyone is funny.

    The long term and trends are NOT best displayed utilized and considered by your consensus makers but in fact by their critics.
    That’s been my point all along. The video
    The consensus is using sloppy science to indicate false trends.

    On your new link it states,

    “Since 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased 35 percent, while temperatures have gone up between 0.6°C and 0.9°C. ”

    This is the perfect example to use. Since long term trends show that this small increase is entirely common and even normal. As clearly shown by the whole science.

    Yet your consensus makers say “Scientists have very high confidence that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.”

    If you ever really analyzed the long term measurements provided in total by the GW critics you would know this increase is not historical, exceptional or alarming.

    The only conclusion to be made is that you do not want the GW hysteria to be neutralized with the truth so you have no interest in either learning the truth or directing any curiosity towards it.

    Which also explains why you find nothing wrong with Portland and Metro cooking up a bogus emissions report to justify their policies you advocate.
    That’s what this is all about. The control of public policy making and the tax money funding it.

    • dean

      Jerry…okay, I’ll write my buddy Earl to advocate your tax credit on bike purchases, paid for by my tax on gas guzzlers. I promise.

      Henry…I mentioned the year to year differences in response to the article Jerry suggested by Rush Limbaugh that focused on a short time frame in his attempt to refute the data that the earth is warming.

      The doubters (those who now admit the earth is warming) say the amount and pace of warming we are experiencing is entirely natural and has nothing to do with carbon. The problem they have had to date is that they can’t find any other “natural” cause to attribute this warming to other than carbon. They have tried and failed (i.e. solar cycles, water vapor) and they will continue to try. Maybe ultimately they can prove their case, but physics says otherwise. Physics predicts the rate of temp rise is tied to carbon rise (first predicted in the 1890s by the way), and so far the climate scientists have been able to validate their models. Until otherwise, I’ll stay with the large body of the world’s climate scientists and you can believe Dr Carter and his video.

      If the Earth’s temperature rises by 5-6 degrees C in a hundred or so years that is a potentially catostrophic rate and amount of increase. Those like Carter who say “more warm good” are irresponsible. We are definitely on track to get more warm. At best we will hold the increase to around 3.5 degrees.

      The larger issue that underlies all of this is what you point out in your last statement. GW is being “cooked up” in order to justify policies that you and others have problems with, including those related to land use planning and transportation. So now, instead of doubting that the earth is warming, or that it is correctly attributed to increased carbon, you are “doubting” that Metro and Portland policies over the last 15 or so years are having any proven effect.

      I’ve looked into this only a little. The claim by Portland’s office of sustainability is that the city has been able to stabalize carbon emmissions at about their 1990 levels, in spite of about a 25% growth in population. I don’t know if this claim is accurate or not.

      But clearly, the less people drive, the more they use transit, the more they walk or bicycle, the more that electric customers get their juice from wind instead of coal, the more we have higher energy efficient buildings, the larger our urban forest….etcetera….the less carbon we are releasing into that atmosphere THAN WE WOULD BE IF WE CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS AS USUAL. Also the less other pollutants we have to breathe in, the fewer lives we have to lose securing Mideast oil, teh less money we send to terrorists and Hugo Chavez, and the more money we get to keep in the US.

      Yes, there are large policy issues at stake. In my view, even if the earth were not warming it makes sense to save energy, build a bit more densly, limit sprawl, conserve forests, plant trees, and do many other things. GW provides yet another reason.

      What are your motivations for doubting the science Henry? Fear of taxes, government, or consevation? The prospect that your world view is being challenged? Are those concerns making you simply want to believe Dr Carter and the doubters?

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, you state “The claim by Portland’s office of sustainability is that the city has been able to stabalize carbon emmissions at about their 1990 levels, in spite of about a 25% growth in population. I don’t know if this claim is accurate or not.”

        The claim was not accurate. It was based on faulty logic and a math error admitted to by the Portland Office of Sustainable Development, as discussed in this 2005 letter from Rich Page and John Charles at Cascade Policy Institute: https://www.cascadepolicy.org/globalreport2005.doc

        • dean

          Steve…my recollection is that they had initially calculated a reduction in carbon emissions, and that the revised calculation said they had either stabalized at 1990 levels or were slightly higher. Is my recollection correct?

          • Steve Buckstein

            Yes, Dean, the original claim was that Portland reduced our carbon emissions to below the 1990 level, likely the only city in the nation to have done so. After correcting for the math error and faulty logic of equating gasoline SALES in Multnomah County to gasoline USE in the county (which, by the way, instructions for the software they used warned them not to do) they revised the report and said emissions were slightly above the 1990 level.

            The magnitude of the error, however, is less important than the fact that the initial claim of being below the 1990 level was touted far and wide, while the error got little if any national attention. I don’t believe the revised report mentions the error; it just states the new conclusion. We have a letter from the OSD admitting the error, but the damage has been done.

          • dean

            Steve…what “damage” was done by the initial error?

            Also, is it Cascade’s position that emissions would have been the same regardless of public policy? Or that emissions don’t matter?

          • Steve Buckstein

            Dean, the “damage” I refer to is the misperception that Portland did things that made a qualitative difference in carbon emissions. It’s the same class of damage as when Oregon was mis-identified a few years back as being the most “food insecure” state in the nation. Even though the chief federal researcher said that his data could not be used to make such determinations, the label stuck. Such labels, whether being the best or worst in some category, can lead to damage in a number of ways, such as if other places follow the “leader” and promote policies that perhaps didn’t really do what they were claimed to do.

            I’ll let John Charles speak for himself on your other two questions, other than to say that I assume specific public policies do have impacts; it just that we need to be careful when trying to measure those impacts, and we need to be watchful when public entities seem to overlook the advise of their own experts and go on use flawed methods of calculating the effects of their policies.

  • Henry

    Dean, You miss every single central point don’t you.

    The point with the Portland emissions report is they never measured squat. They simply concocted the outcome they wanted. The reason they used Portland fuel sales is they discovered that fuel sales within Portland, for a variety of reasons including shut down stations and the region growing elsewhere, that sales had not increased like the region at large. That enabled them to concoct their emission’s levels, make their claims and have it touted all over the place.
    Deliberate propagandizing with tax payer money to justify their policies and agenda.
    It’s complete Bullshit and you can’t grasp it.

    Did you look to see if the Portland report was “peer reviewed”?
    How about the scientists involved? Were you not curious as to who the expert scientists were who compiled the report?

    Now you are asking “what’s the damage” from compiling and spreading false reports? Oh gee Dean I guess it doesn’t matter.

    Never mind those policies don’t do what they claim and therefore waste taxpayer money.

    It’s not just the doubters saying the pace of warming we are experiencing is entirely natural and has nothing to do with carbon.
    You can’t grasp this central point either.
    It’s the data, measurments and science which shows clearly
    the current warming is NOT unusual.

    There is also no problem showing what and how warming occurs.

    You are simply too unread and purposefully ignorant oin this topic.

    It is complete BS that only carbon is causing the current warming.
    Even historically speaking the data shows CO2 increases actually followed warming not triggered it.

    AGAIN for the dozen or so times, if you watched the videos and comprehended the presentation and graphs it’s all there.

    You declare “They have tried and failed (i.e. solar cycles, water vapor) and they will continue to try.”

    You couldn’t be more wrong.

    For Carter or the IPCC and look only at the science.
    It doesn’t say what you echo here.
    That’s why there is laughter in crowds where the whole science is diplayed.

    The IPCC models leave out major considerations and effects of major components such as water vapor the largest green house gas.

    Earth’s temperature has risen and fallen many times and anything in the range of 1-3 degrees per 100 years is entirely routine.
    We’re not even witnessing an unpresidented rate of increase.
    Also in the videos.

    Your certainty of 5-6 degree rise or holding it to around 3.5 degrees, if we sustain and expand your agenda is sloppy nonsense.

    Yes of course I doubt Metro and Portland policies are having any proven effect. That’s why they join together and make bogus emissions reports without even so much as actually having ANY emissions measurements.
    This is how much of a hypocrite you are. If Metro and Portland put together a report without any shred of legitimate science, without any peer review you are completely OK with it because it suports your agenda.

    You’ve “looked into” it? No you didn’t. You went and got a hold of the spin and are now trying to distribute that BSD here.

    You don’t know if thier claim is accurate or not but just assume
    they have succeeded anyway.
    Then you toss theory world to trumet the junk Metor peddles and you support.

    The fact is we have no higher percentage of commutters using transit/ped/bike then we did 20 year ago only now we have much worse CO2 spewing congestion.

    Hypocrite Dean lectures that the GW consensus is backed by solid science and all the experts then when it comes to locally he could care less about either. He just want more planning, high density, light rail streetcars etc. If it takes bogus reports, lying and a complete absence of science so be it.
    He’ll still claim we are reducing Carbon when we are not.
    And of course Dean has defaults all lined up to back up the need for the same polcies without GW.
    How convenient. How dishonest.

    CO2 is not a polutant. Wasting billions on loony policies isn’t reducing the relaince on Mideast oil, doesn’t mean less money we send to terrorists and Hugo Chavez, and doesn’t mean we keep more money in the US.

    The massive spending around here on Dean approved policies is stunning fraud perpetrated by clowns who think they know best and will conduct public deciet as needed.

    GW provides the mother of all deceit.

    My motivations are the consensus science is fraud. Lighr rail is fraud, smart grwoth is fraud and you are a fraud.

    Yes I don’t like taxes wasted, runaway government mission creep and evrironmental extremism mascarading as consevation.
    Or lying public agencies and officials defrauding the public.

    I don’t have to beleive in or rely upon Carter or other doubters. The hard IPCC and NAS and NASA and other data works for me.

    It is you the zealot who blindly “believes”.

    • dean

      Steve..does the difference suggest Portland failed to make a “qualitative” difference (I think you may have meant “quantitative” no?)? If CO2 emmissions were only slightly above 1990 levels, while the rest of the nation had I think a 16% higher level, then that suggests Portland’s policies are working, though not as well as I might like.

      Henry…you just keep trotting out the same already debunked crap time and again. Truly, its tiring.
      1) The CO2 time lag relative to long cycle climate changes has been well known by climate scientists at least since 1990. Your man Carter treats this like it is his “discovery.” Glacial periods are triggered by periodic changes in the earth’s “wobble.” During the deep ice ages atmospheric CO2 was much lower than today. The ice age time lag has nothing to do with today’s warming that is being led by CO2. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years of the ice core record.

      2) Water vapor accounts for about 60-70% of the greenhouse effect, 80-90% when you include clouds. It is accounted for in all the models. A given water molecule lasts something like 10 days in the atmosphere while carbon may last 100 years. And we are not putting more water up. We are putting more carbon up. Atmospheric water stays in rough balance day to day.

      3) Over long time periods climate ranges a few degrees up and down. The pace of present change, its cause, and where it may end up is the concern.

      4) I did not say I was “certain” about anything. I used the projections of the actual scientists. The 3.5 deg limit is the achievable goal if we get our act together.

      5) See my note to Steve. Portland’s policies do appear to be having a significant effect, just not as positive as they had earlier calculated.

      6) Do I insist Portland get their data peer reviewed? No. They are a political, not scientific organization. But it has been questioned publicly, and apparently they acknowledged their error and made the correction. I’m satisfied with that. Why aren’t you?

      7) For the record, I’m not necessarily a fan of the streetcars.

      8) $100 a barrel oil Henry. Who’s pocket does that money go into?

      Have a nice weekend.

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, you ask “Steve..does the difference suggest Portland failed to make a ‘qualitative’ difference (I think you may have meant “quantitative” no?)?”

        Actually, I did mean qualitative, in the sense that the difference between lowering emissions below the 1990 level is qualitatively different than lowering them to a level even slightly above that level. That’s because Portland’s goal was to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, and so claiming (falsely it turns out) that it achieved that goal in 2004 is qualitatively different than saying it just came close.

        The “quantitative” difference admitted to by the city was that it failed to count 74,561 tons of CO2 that were apparently in the air in 2004. But who remembers that number? What is the context? Compared to what denominator?

        That’s why I think the qualitative difference is more relevant here than the quantitative one.

  • Henry

    Dean,
    Why do you think Portland even measured emissions at all. They didn’t. Itr’s not just a matter of some minor math error and they still have valid measurments.

    You ask Steve questions with the blind acceptance they have emission measurments.

    Portland can claim they reduced emissions no more that you can just assume they did because of their policies.
    There’s no there there and certainly no emission measurements for either 1990 or when they made their Bullshit report.

    Becasue of the census numbers and increasing congestion resulting from their policies I can make abetter case that Portland failed to make a difference in CO2 emmissions.
    But it appears for you self serving assumtion is good enough.

    Now you’ll re running around blogs telling people Portland’s only slightly above 1990 levels, while the rest of the nation had I think a 16% higher level.
    Which is completely fabricated misinformation.

    Of course you then suggest Portland’s policies are working.

    Dean, it is you who trots out the same crap time and again. and always missing the pieces that make it clear, whiel echoing the elementrary.
    And yo forever mischaracterize what is told to you or is said by Carter et al and the entire science.
    The trouble is you expect me to convey the entire caae right here because you are too lazy to bone up yourself.

    1)Yeah of course CO2 time lag has been well known, Cater doesn’t do what you spin.
    It’s not only the ice age that produced CO2 lag time. The same CO2 lag time has happened throughout history.
    But YOU don’t know what how the ice age relates to today’s warming.
    The way the IPCC gets there alarmist predition of 3-5 degree warming is not just from “our”CO2. Their science, and the oppostion’s, on CO2 only points to a 1 degree increase. So the IPCC added the effects or more water vapor supposedly caused by our CO2 emission, and increased their predition.
    BUT ion cherry picking the science they left out the effect of more clouds, which is cooling by reflecting.
    Thats the kind of sloppy science pointed out in the video.
    Other whoppers by IPCC involve improper plotting of solar cycles to show a fasle trend trend.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

    You’ve completely missed the water vapor and clouds effects.
    The rest of you jibberish is equally corrupted and torpedoed by Carter and his graphs.

    You distort how CO2 accumulates actually undermine the IPCC case with your claim Atmospheric water stays in rough balance.

    Yes over long time periods climate ranges a few degrees up and down. The pace of present changes is NO different. The IPCC case is laughable and of no concern.

    The 3.5 deg limit is as bogus as Portland science.

    Of course you need no science here in Portland. The political agenda is enough for a hypocrite like you.
    And you help them gloss over and obscure their fraud.
    They have not corrected their claims of measuring emissions.

    But you’re satisfied with their claims? Big surprise Deano.
    The only reason one can buy their claims is intellectual dishonesty, political alignment and fanatasism.

    $100 a barrel oil Henry. Who’s pocket does that money go into?

    The people selling the barrels of oil.

    What a card.

    • dean

      Steve,
      I think you are picking nits on this one. Haven’t you ever set a goal that you slightly missed? Hasn’t your policy institute set goals that you worked for (i.e. school vouchers) and failed to get accomplished? And Kyoto, which is what Portland was striving for, said the 1990 goal does not need to be met until 2010 if I remember right. There is still time for Portland.

      Henry…I could say you are a nit, but I won’t.

      The people selling the oil are the Saudis, the Iranians, the Venezuelans. Who flew planes into the world trade center? Saudis. Who funds terrorists that kill Americans? Saudis and Iranians. Who pokes a stick in our eye? Venezuela. Why ar Americans dying in Iraq? Oil. Who funds the handful of “scientists” who help confuse the public and delay action against global warming? Oil and coal companies. Maybe you don’t care but I do, and I would like to stop sending them my money.

      There are a lot of potential synergistic effects that could raise temperatures beyond what just the carbon alone will do. Too many to go into here, but they include higher methane levels from permafrost melting and loss of albedo as glaciers retreat, as well as some additional water vapor.

      But hey…I’m not gonna worry about it. No sir not me. The video proves its all a hoax. Good enough for me. Pump it out and burn it up…that’s my new motto Henry.

      • Jerry

        Dean – you could stop sending them your money in several ways.
        Walk or ride or take MAX everywhere you go.
        Dig for oil in ANWAR.
        Put a windmill on your property.
        Help me get a tax credit for all bikes purchased by anyone, as long as they are made in the USA.

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, of course I’ve set goals that were slightly missed. But I don’t recall ever telling everyone that I made the goal; had it trumpeted nationwide, and then quietly recanted, leaving most people in the dark as Portland did.

  • Henry

    The Deany Baby- Deaniacs are forever blocking ways to gain oil independence. Even to the extent they have removed hydro electric power from being sustainable and green.
    They are kooks pure and simple.
    They block the use of vast supplies of domestic natural resources for evey cockamamie reason then cry when we need to out source more.
    They tout Europe as a model for all sorts of things then go silent when Nuclear Power comes up.
    Dean is the classic moving target lefty who parades around his agenda with multiple choice rationales.
    Global warming is a crisis, but even if it isn’t everything else is a crisis too so we need their policies anyway.

    His take on Global Warming is no more than the same crap in crap out used by Portland hoaxters.
    With his blind acceptance of Portland bogus emissions claims and his attempt to help out the hoax by making people beleive they only missed their goal slightly, is clear enough Dean
    misrepresents as a way of advocating.

    This wouldn’t be such a demonstrative example, Portland and Dean lying about emissions, if it weren’t merely one in a long string of similar and perpetual misinformation campaigns funded by our local agencies.

    Yes Dean there are a lot of things that effect climate.
    The case for human CO2 doing so is bunk.
    But you deliberately ignore the severity of the bunk because as you admitted, you don’t need GW. It doesn’t matter if it’s a hoax.
    Just like it doesn’t matter to you if Portland perpetrated a local hoax. “What’s the damage” you asked.

    The damage is the wasting of billions of dollars on programs, policies and projects which produce little more than the imaginary benefits your pals fabricate while resulting in fiscal and systems chaos.

  • Henry

    Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change

    January 2, 2008

    Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

    Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

    “We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

    As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing – an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

    When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”

    Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”

    More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available at: http://www.spaceandscience.net
    The previous NASA announcement was made at:
    https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    • dean

      Jerry…I cycle, walk, and use Max when in town . I work from home on my farm, so can’t do without my 10 year old 25MPG small pickup truck completely. I’m not opposed to ANWAR drilling if it is part of a larger energy bill that is serious about conservation and alternative energy development. You just added the “made in USA” to your previous bicycle credit proposal. Problem is there is only one mass produced cycle left in the USA I think. Some nice custom built frames can be had for $3K. Keep it simple.

      As for windmills, I checked on this and unfortunately our location is not windy enough (according to data from Oregon State) to allow operation of a commercial wind turbine, whcih needs average wind speeds of 15MPH and minimum of 8 to make energy. Our average (nearest reporting anemometer station) is only around 9.5. Basically the entire W. Valley lacks enough wind, but we have sufficient solar to get about 50% of all our electrical and space heating needs met.

      We have invested in passive solar and insulation for the time being. May go active solar soon if we decide to stay put.

      Henry…nukes are common in some European nations like France, others like Germany are phasing them out. Nukes may be a necessary evil that is better than continued carbon production. But it takes 10 years to get a nuke plant up and running, and for the same investment over that period you could mount a lot of rooftop solar collectors or install a whole lot of windmills. And they would be producing energy while you were still waiting for nuke permits and trying to figure out whose back yard to put radioactive waste in for the next 100,000 or so years.

      As for the impressive sounding “Space and Science Research Center,” I suggest you check into your sources. It appears to be the latest in a line of sham organizations set up to spread misinformation on global climate. Their “staff of leading scientists” is apparently non existant, and their leader is an engineer, not a climate scientist.

      This must be frustrating for you, as it is for me (for different reasons). But I’ll paraphrase myself:

      If John Casey and his Center, Dr Carter, or anyone else has valid data or analysis that overturns the global warming thesis that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists worldwide has accepted as reality, they have every opportunity to submit their work for peer review. If they are proven correct they could win a Nobel science prize and we could all relax and argue about urban growth, energy use, and other important issues on local rather than global terms.

      That would be fine with me.

  • Jerry

    Dean – I only added the made in the USA as I think it is important to not only quit sending all our money to the middle east, but also to China.
    If the tax credit was $500 then people could get a USA made bike.
    Maybe I should amend it to say any bike purchased made anywhere except China.
    That might work.
    Thanks.
    Regardless, we need to get this passed. Please let me know what you find out from Earl when you contact him.
    I sure don’t see any difference between what I propose and the tax credits you can get now for insulation, buying a hybrid, going solar, etc.

    • dean

      Jerry….money to China is a whole nother problem and topic. Like I said, keep it simple. If the goal is to get more people biking, then a tax credit and or mileage deduction is good enough. You should run your idea past the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, which is a registered lobbying organization for cyclists. All liberals. You would love them. https://www.bta4bikes.org/

  • stop the insanity

    Those spreading misinformation are among the consensus.
    As far as Casey and his organization goes, he’s confirming and using a NASA report. Hardly misinformation.
    But it’s discussed here along with more debunking of your consensus
    https://motls.blogspot.com/

    I don’t know why you keep suggesting the opposing climate need only submit their findings to the consensus and they’ll vet it, and apologise?
    That consensus isn’t going anywhere.
    Just like Portland and Metro with their bogus emissions report.
    When they are exposed for not having any valid emissions measurements you and they barely altered their bogus claims.

    Same goes for the rest of the agenda and corrupted cult you hold membership in. So there’s no sense pretending the coinsensus is impartial and science oriented. They are as politcial as Portland and Metro.

    • dean

      STI…okay, then since NASA is very clearly part of the scientific consensus, let’s let them work it out. If it turns out to be true, we will know soon enough.

      When a scientist has a theory or data or an analysis on a subject, he or she does not submit it to a “consensus.” It is submitted to a peer reviewed journal.

      The “consensus” on global warming is simply what the vast majority of climate scientists believe is the best explanation that links observed rising temperatures with observed increase in atmospheric carbon, given everything that has been published.

      At least that is what my “cult” tells me to say.

  • Henry

    dean did you honestly think I needed you to explain to me the consensus and peer review? And that I was literally meaning submit to the “consensus”?

    What do you mean “if” it turns out to be true? We do know. The NASA report on solar activity is clear. You can argue what the predicted fluctuations mean but it’s pretty well established.

    I find it disingenuous that you woudl pretend to be open minded and that the consensus or Metro is also open minded.
    There isn’t anything that will alter their agenda.
    If NASA and the NAS came out tomorrow with sceince contradicting the consensus, the consensus would do exactly what you’ve been doing. Moving the crossbar and benchmarks for the identical policies and agenda.
    We see it happening right now as they make sure we get daily doses of their propaganda, from evey angle, attempting to ramp up the agenda to combat the growing scientific objections.

    • dean

      Henry…I’m reacting to what you write. You said:

      “I don’t know why you keep suggesting the opposing climate need only submit their findings to the consensus…”

      I can’t know what you know and don’t know. I can only know what you express in these posts. I assumed from what you wrote in your own words that you are not familiar with the way the science game is played. I apologize if that assumption offended you.

      “If it turns out to be true” means if the new NASA report on Solar activity is validated and overturns or modifies the present global warming hypothesis. If it is merely interesting, or deals only with natural fluctuations over a much longer time frame, then nothing changes.

      Henry, you are the one who keeps dragging Metro into this. I have no idea what the point of that is frankly. And I don’t care if Portland was off in their estimate of local carbon, nor do I care why they were off. These are not relevant issues with respect to GLOBAL warming. If we want to reduce carbon generation, the solutions are straightforward and consistent with what Portland’s Office of Sustainability is promoting, i.e. less car use, more energy efficient buildings, more trees, and alternative energy. To the extent we do these things we are making progress, and to the extent we don’t we aren’t. My opinion is these are all good ideas with our without Global Warming hanging over our heads, and by the way all of these actions are already POLITICALLY popular and have wide support in this region. We don’t need GW to want to increase bicycle use or reduce car traffic.

      I am open minded about the science of global warming. I’m not a scientist, but I work in the field of ecology and understand how the field of science works. I also understand how politics works, though I’m not a politician.

      You are wrong on one key point. If those who conduct the research and interpret the results, like James Hansen at NASA and the 2500 IPCC members from nations all over the world come up with new findings or interpretations that contradict previous findings they will ultimately accept the new evidence if it is compelling. Your fundamental error is assuming they have a political agenda that would result in a grand conspiracy to dupe the world (“Hoax”) into investing billions of dollars in alternative energy.

      Why would they do that? To help Portland and Metro sell higher density, light rail and bicycle lanes? Have they all invested in wind energy?

      No Henry…try to be the least bit objective. Who keeps moving the goalposts? It is your doubters, like Fred Singer, Dennis Avery, and John Carter, all financed by energy companies, who easily transition from one argument to the next: its not warming, okay it is but its natural, okay maybe it is CO2 but so what… etcetera without mising a beat.

      The climate scientists have been consistent. They identified the potential for CO2 to raise temperatures in the 1890s, and over time have taken meaurements and interpreted data, built models to try and isolate variables, and have come to the very resonable conclusions that you refuse to accept. There is no motivation for them to lie to us. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if they wanted more research funds they would say THEY DON’T KNOW ENOUGH YET. In other words, they would agree with the doubters. How do you explain that one?

      Scientists are imperfect humans, have egos, petty squables amongst themselves, and sometimes just get it wrong. But they live in a self correcting system. There may be propaganda on both sides of this argument, but only one side has the correct science. That is your ultimate dilemna.

  • Henry

    Dean,
    One of your more severe and obvious problems is your hypocricy that leaves you asking “Why would they do that?”

    Why would Metro conspire with Portland to craft a bogus emissions report? It’s obvious in the reprot itself which claims their policies produced the emissions reductions they fabricated.
    They have much more to gain than their opponents such a Cascade Policy Institute.
    Metro and Portland are corrupted while CPI is not.

    On GW, you want eveyone to believe all these scientists out there who are contradicting the IPCC are being paid by oil to discredit good science. Nonsense.
    Why would THEY do that? They have nothing to gain at all.

    The IPCC has been as consistant as Portland/Metro, clinging to their claims in the face of tremendous debunking.

    There is not propaganda driving the opposition to Human Global Warming. That is your wishfull thinking and another moving of the goal posts. “If there’s propaganda on both sides it’s not so bad that my side does it.”

    The propaganda from the Al Gore/IPCC side permeates everything.
    I watched it on a cable accsess broadcast of a recent Metro hearing where a new councilor touted the latest IPCC summary as a stark warning for them to get busy with more of their works.
    What nonsense.
    And the entire council still buys and repeats the phony Portland emissions report. All balderdash.

    Just as Metro did years ago when they produced and distributed across the country, high end multi-colored brochures touting themselves a model for the nation in planning.
    That’s how they got their reputation. By propagandizing it.

    With their allies at Portland/TriMet et al, the long term, full time tax funded campaign to promote themselves and their policies has mushroomed into rampant dishonesty as their recent activities demonmstrate.

    The IPCC models have been shown to be of that same ilk.
    Their immovable conclusions are shameless.
    Just as you do locally with your proud support of our planning regime, you refuse to believe they have ANY motivation to lie to us.

    Can you imagine Metro saying they wanted more research funds because THEY DON’T KNOW ENOUGH YET?
    Get real. Metro wants more money to fund everything which includes their fulltime propaganda machine.
    They’ll never agree with any of their “doubters”.
    That’s not hard to explain at all.
    Al Gore will never change his tune either.
    What he will do is do exaclty whay you did here on this thread.
    Obfuscate and goal post shifting with ultimate claims that all of the
    policies and spending he advocates are neccessary even without Human Global Warming.

    • dean

      Henry…you call it a bogus report. It was an error that was corrected. And after the correction the results on carbon generation were still impressive by national standards.

      I don’t know what motivates the CPI, nor do I know how corrupted they are or not. Clearly they have an agenda to demonstrate that government can’t get anything right (except police and prisons perhaps). This leads them to cherry pick news articles or reports that confirm their pre-held views. Its politics, not science. Nothing wrong with that as long as intelligent readers can tell the difference.

      Why would some scientists take money from big oil to cast doubt on global warming theory? Well I would guess that some probably do it for the money, some for the ego trip and media attention, and some because they sincerely believe their answer is better than that of NASA, the IPCC, and every major scientific body in the world. And like I said, someday they may be proven right. Mazltov to them.

      The IPCC does not create the data, the models, or the analysis Henry. They SYNTHESIZE ALL the peer reviewed and published science.

      Your mixing up of Metro and the IPCC says it all. You can’t accept GW theory because Metro will use it to promote land use and transportation policies you don’t like. Get over yourself.

  • Henry

    Dean,
    Are you doing this deliberately? Purposefully trying to cast the only problem with the report as some minor error they corrected?
    Probably. But if not, the incompetence you are demonstrating says it all.
    No wonder you are so lost on the IPCC debate.

    Put the math error aside.
    For the 6th time, at least, it’s a bogus report because Portland and Metro never measured emissions at all.
    Are you grasping this so you can respond to this?

    They had no emissions measurements from 1990 or when the report was prepared.
    It was all entirely concocted from fuel sales in side Portland without the slightest respect for any scientific worth.

    Your misinformation that only a minor math error occurred speaks loudly about your methods.
    Claiming the error correction resulted in “still impressive” carbon generation by national standards shows you have no need for science when it suits you.

    Unlike you and your motivations the truth, math and science motivates the CPI.
    Their thorough work is not cherry picking.

    In stark contrast the bogus emissions report is precisely and fabricated report that confirms Portland/Metro’s pre-held agenda.

    Its science with CPI and politics with your cult.
    There’s everything wrong with using public money to propagandize and deceive the public, to facilitate further misspending of public money.

    Yes intelligent readers can tell the difference.
    You? Not so much.

    I know what the IPCC does and what they use.
    This is another area where you avoid or fail to grasp the central point being made.

    The IPCC is not using all of the data they have to form their predictions. Their models are flawed with bad science.
    Try and SYNTHESIZE that.

    The comparing of Metro and IPCC does say much.
    But not what you dream up. What is shows is the willingness of our local agencies to fabricate data and reports to propagate and perpetuate policies and funding.
    On a grand scale is Al Gore and the consensus doing exactly the same thing. Sure their are some who have genuinely beleived in the IPCC science. But many have misread and continue to misrepresent it.

    I don’t accept the IPCC case because it’s bunk and they are using it to thrust upon the globe a very costly and dishonest agenda.
    Metro is already using it to promote costly local land use and transportation policies that don’t.
    Global warming was the genesis behind their own local scam on emissions.

    Get over your diversions.

    • dean

      Estimates Henry. They used estimates. How could they possibly have done actual measurements? They use census data, transportation data, PGE data, gasoline sales data, and they make estimates. Carbon emissions worldwide are based on estimates using similar sources.

      The CPI does not cherry pick? What…you think this is an objective science organization and not a political advocacy one?

      Below is a direct quote from Steve Buckstein in an exchange we were having on marginal tax rates under his updated “Scrooge” post.

      “I won’t challenge your “real world evidence” here except to say again that there are always other factors at work and it’s difficult to isolate a single policy, such as tax changes, and claim that because growth was high under a regime of high marginal tax rates then, it’s fine to bring back those high rates now.

      So, no, *seeing such evidence doesn’t cause me to question my core beliefs, because those beliefs are not based on the practical effects of policies so much as on the moral belief that people should be as free as possible to control their own lives and property.*

      If you could prove to me, for example, that lowering a specific tax rate might somehow harm the overall economy, I would likely still advocate for that change based on my philosophical belief that it would increase the liberty of whomever was being taxed.
      #6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Steve Buckstein on 2007-12-28 12:46 (Reply)

      Read what Steve wrote slowly Henry. I’m not saying he is right or wrong, good or bad for what he says (he seems an intelligent, honorable fellow to me.) But in his own words he confirms that he (and by implication CPI) values personal liberty over whatever good some policy might accomplish. So it is not “science with the CPI.” It is advocacy. Sorry to burst your bubble. But then again, your bubble is impregnable so never mind.

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, just because I might choose a policy for philosophical reasons, even if the “science” says it will do something negative in the economy, does not mean that I ignore that science. I could just as easily say that if two wolves and a sheep voted for what to have for lunch, you would be fine with the majority vote because the wolves get more good out of the policy than the sheep loses. Replace wolves and sheep with members of two different political parties and you get the point, hopefully.

        • dean

          Steve…I understand, and am not meaning to be critical. My point was that Henry held CRI up as a paragon of a science based organization, and I think you would agree you are an advocacy organization, not an objective science one. Am I right?

          I’ve heard the wolves and sheep story before. But the more apt one would be a big flock of sheep voting the wolves off the island. At first that would seem a good idea but then the sheep would overpopulate and eat all the forage, then starve.Tthat one works better for your cause no?

          • Steve Buckstein

            Dean, you’re correct that Cascade would not be characterized as a neutral organization simply analyzing facts, but we do try to present the facts accurately in conjunction with our mission of promoting individual liberty, personal responsibility and economic opportunity.

            I can’t agree with your modified wolves/sheep story. First, assuming the wolves can eat something other than sheep, then simply voting to keep them from eating the sheep would be appropriate, but voting them off the island would not. Of course that assumes the sheep don’t own the entire island; then it’s a property rights issue and they would be free to order the wolves to leave.

            I also think you’re carrying the wolves/sheep thing too far in assuming that without wolves the sheep would overpopulate and starve. My assumption is that the sheep would quickly adapt and voluntarily control their own population as many human societies do when they become more affluent. Remember, we’re using wolves and sheep as surrogates for human groups with different political views, aren’t we?

  • Henry

    Dean,
    You will never see a report by CPI that’s derived from such absence of any legitimate measurement that you defend by calling “estimates”.
    You make my point about the bogus report by asking “How could they possibly have done actual measurements? ”

    They couldn’t, did not and don’t have measurements. Making their claims completely fabricated, despite your attempt to legitimize their methods.
    “Estimates”?
    Their methods were ludicrous, producing a completely fabricated conclusions.
    Manipulating primarily gasoline sales data to make claims of successful policies that reduced emissions.
    It’s laughable that you would be so naive.
    With the increase in more fuel efficient vehicles, reductions in CoP gas stations, growth patterns, points of fuel purchase it’s rediculous to take Portland out of the region and use fuel sales to make emissions claims.
    It appears I need to point out to you even the most obvious flaws such as fuel sales just outside city borders but consumed by city users would not have counted. During the report period old stations within the city have been decomissioned while new gas stations have sprouted up outside the city boundary.
    But putting that all aside there is no doubt this Portland/Metro report was put together with a predetermined conclusion.
    It’s also a lesson in what’s become standard operating procedure with these agencies using tax money to cook up promotion of their own performance, worth and agenda.
    Oh but it’s only “estimating”?
    No it’s bald faced lying.

    • dean

      Okay Henry. You have now managed to overturn entire fields of social and medical science that rely on surveys, census reports, and consumer data to ESTIMATE a vast range of things that can’t otherwise be understood. Pretty good for a mornings work my friend! You should write a paper and win your own Nobel.

      Steve…yes, the wolves and sheep are surrogates for people. I was extending the metaphor into the Atlas shrugged arena, only casting the sheep as shrugging off the atlas (wolf) in this case.

      Voting the wolves off the island is actually a field tested ecological experiment. In Yellowstone, eliminating the wolves allowed the elk to eat themselves and many other critters out of house and home. The return of the wolves has chased the elk out of riparian areas, allowing recovery of streamside vegetation, beavers that need this vegetation, and birds and amphibians that live in the wetlands created by the beavers. Also the streams themselves are cleaner and healthier. Fascinating story of what can happen by removing or reintroducing just one key component of a complex ecosystem.

      So the metaphor for you is, take the wolves (capitalists) out of the economy and you may get a decline in the economic system (experiment for this was the USSR). Or back to the subject at hand, warm the earth to much too fast and you risk everything, including the wolves and the economy.

      But enough of that.

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, the wolves are not the capitalists in the stories we’re discussing. The wolves are the criminals and predators that threaten all the other animals. Those animals who build for the future or save for winter would have capitalist tendencies. Beavers? Even bees and ants, although I know you’ll come back and correctly say that they live in very communal, even communist societies with little or no individual freedom.

  • carol

    Steve, you mention populatoin control among the more affluent, unfortunately that is not the case among the less affluent, and I THINK therby lies the problem that keeps y’all at odds!

    • Steve Buckstein

      You’re right Carol. More affluent societies are also better able and willing to turn their attention to environmental amenities; clean air and water, etc. Below a certain income level, people are too preoccupied with day-to-day survival to care about such things. So, promoting policies that encourage economic growth and affluence are good for more than the obvious reasons.

      • dean

        Steve and Carol….population control is working in very poor countries where either the state is forcing it (China) or where women have been empowered economically and with reproductive control methods. The latter is an undereported success story of inernational aid efforts.

        Steve…okay. We had both be careful of Animal Farm metaphors then. Though crows are one of my favorites. They are fiercely independent and incredibly adaptable, yet also rely on the larger community. If you rescue an injured crow you have to return it to where you found it so that it can rejoin its clan. It can’t survive by itself. Ravens also care for their sick, elderly, and injured.

        Both crows and ravens may be mixed capitalist and socialist societies! What a concept!

        • Steve Buckstein

          Dean, let’s save Animal Farm metaphors for another time.

          I hope you’re not an admirer of China’s forced population control methods?

          • dean

            Steve…its a date. No, I don’t admire or advocate their methods. But desperate situations sometimes call for desperate measures, and they experienced serious starvation in living memory.

            I do admire the grassroots work that some international aid groups have done with respect to empowering women in impossible circumstances.

          • carol

            Women becoming empowered, now there’s a scary thought!!!

            You must take into consideration the fact that both women and men are realising that it isn’t sinful to avoid bringing children into a world of hunger, the hold of church is gradually being loosened, thank God.

            Dean, I wasn’t referring to third-world countries when I said that the poor are not helping control the population. Except for a couple of religious groups that still encourage large families, thus increasing the size of the ‘fold’, most of the more than 2-3 children families are the poor. And there is where women need empowerment. I can’t imagine having a child that I can’t feed, and then doing it over again, and again. Stand up ladies, and say a resounding HELL NO!!!!

  • Henry

    Ok dean. I get it now.

    Our tax dollars can be spent at will by these agencies to bullshit the public into thinking their policies and agenda is producing results.

    They can lie all they want , without any basis, as long as they call it “estimating”?

    Now that’s rich.

    • dean

      Henry…I guess I’m less judgemental. If they used reasonable estimates, and they got those wrong, and then they later corrected themselves, its not lying. Its making an error. To err is human. You know…like your friend Bush and Iraq.

  • Henry

    Perfect annalogy.
    You’re still living in the WMDs era while recent intelligence, science, tells us there were not the WMDs as thought.

    With the “estimates” you are not grasping my point.

    Authentic “estimating” requires some legitimate means and basis for measurement.
    The emissions report had no such means or basis.
    Farbication was the only means or basis for their claims.

    You want to call it estimating because you live in a fantasy world where these agencies don’t misbehave.
    If it were only this particular study that was cooked up no one including myself, and likely CPI, would have even bothered to scrutinize the thing.

    But they have along track record of misrepresenting policy plans, costs and outcomes. Whether it’s TODs, Light Rail, the UGB process, Urban Renewal, traffic congestion or bike ridership they “estimate” far from the truth.

  • Pingback: cndfzxmcnzxbvczxmxddfgsxsb()

  • Pingback: cm84o5toxmwnc57vtbcdnv55v4()

  • Pingback: xwcn75oxmtcn8setxemgc54g5()

  • Pingback: dui attorney berkeley()

  • Pingback: banheiras()

  • Pingback: security melbourne()

  • Pingback: papa johns add coupon code()

  • Pingback: Doppler Color()

  • Pingback: netflix account email and password()

  • Pingback: groupon merchant()

  • Pingback: best products()

  • Pingback: criminal defense attorney york()

  • Pingback: esta()

  • Pingback: automotive service advisor salary()

  • Pingback: movie2k()

  • Pingback: league of legends clothes()

  • Pingback: casino no deposit()

  • Pingback: Shell Scanner()

  • Pingback: seo training minneapolis()

  • Pingback: minneapolis seo consultant()

  • Pingback: watch this video()

  • Pingback: sacred 3 trainer()

  • Pingback: vitamin c serum()

  • Pingback: news()

  • Pingback: seo services expert()

  • Pingback: this website()

  • Pingback: my singing monsters trucos()

  • Pingback: mod hungry shark evolution()

  • Pingback: boom beach diamonds()

  • Pingback: Simple Drawing()

  • Pingback: unity3d()

  • Pingback: hand pump for bottle()

  • Pingback: cat sitter in naples()

  • Pingback: making cash online()

  • Pingback: Microcap()

  • Pingback: car accessories camera()

  • Pingback: tv antenna 50 mile range for outdoor()

  • Pingback: dart boards lincoln ne()

  • Pingback: https://zombiediary2hackandcheats.com/()

  • Pingback: Erin()

  • Pingback: in home pet sitter in naples()

  • Pingback: Lorretta Niedbala()

  • Pingback: https://cutt.us/I47A()

  • Pingback: rotating led light spectacle bulb()

  • Pingback: InstallShield vs InstallAware()

  • Pingback: Startups Companies()

  • Pingback: Best drones for sale()

  • Pingback: greatest pet sitter in naples fl()

  • Pingback: skinny fiber()

  • Pingback: raspberry ketone reviews()

  • Pingback: puppy sitter()

  • Pingback: clash royale hack()

  • Pingback: learn more here()

  • Pingback: short jokes()

  • Pingback: Private investigator Pretoria()

  • Pingback: my latest blog post()

  • Pingback: hack clash royale gold()

  • Pingback: Obsession Phrases Examples()

  • Pingback: https://pusatrombong.bravesites.com/()

  • Pingback: free psychic readings()

  • Pingback: Medix College Reviews()

  • Pingback: android game cheat apk()

  • Pingback: Medix College Reviews()

  • Pingback: bountiful divorce lawyer()

  • Pingback: verhuisbedrijf rotterdam()

  • Pingback: piante online()

  • Pingback: seo()

  • Pingback: Buy Beats Cheap()

  • Pingback: massage()

  • Pingback: easiest ways to make money()

  • Pingback: Cathy()

  • Pingback: clash of clans hack()

  • Pingback: Rafferty Pendery()

  • Pingback: tapas shoreditch()

  • Pingback: san antonio bail bonds()

  • Pingback: top rated air purifiers guide()

  • Pingback: tantric massage()

  • Pingback: sms lån()

  • Pingback: restaurants grand central()

  • Pingback: avast premier serial key()

  • Pingback: Kurma()

  • Pingback: avast license key()

  • Pingback: iv therapy miami fl()

  • Pingback: buy hacklink()

  • Pingback: instagram followers porn()

  • Pingback: dlh()

  • Pingback: liquid iv ft lauderdale()

  • Pingback: blaty drewniane dlh()

  • Pingback: 144hz monitor()

  • Pingback: american heritage inc()

  • Pingback: Storage Company Cheltenham()

  • Pingback: cedr()

  • Pingback: https://bit.ly/1R3rpYt()

  • Pingback: best umbrella to buy()

  • Pingback: Diabetes Destroyer()

  • Pingback: san antonio bail bonds()

  • Pingback: https://latest-game-codes.com()

  • Pingback: san antonio bail bonds()

  • Pingback: isis videos()

  • Pingback: Hottest WAGs in Sports()

  • Pingback: break fix()

  • Pingback: break fix()

  • Pingback: water heater()

  • Pingback: recupero dati()

  • Pingback: Despacho de abogados Derecho()

  • Pingback: recupero dati()

  • Pingback: techos de aluminio()

  • Pingback: Detroit Lions Sweatshirts()

  • Pingback: spam king()

  • Pingback: alpha brain review()

  • Pingback: tao of badass buy()

  • Pingback: Matthew Stafford Jersey()

  • Pingback: Detroit Red Wings Store()

  • Pingback: viagra gdzie kupi�()

  • Pingback: porno()

  • Pingback: art inspiration()

  • Pingback: cranecrews.com()

  • Pingback: uab ost express()

  • Pingback: Detroit Pistons()

  • Pingback: Brazzers Porn()

  • Pingback: metin2 pvp()

  • Pingback: Cialis apteka()

  • Pingback: como comprar en linea en estados unidos hacia colombia()

  • Pingback: how to fill magic autofill in irctc()

  • Pingback: Kim Kardashian Sex Tape()

  • Pingback: poodle dog breed information()

  • Pingback: Christiana()

  • Pingback: pozyczki()

  • Pingback: Free Minecraft Accounts()

  • Pingback: viagra()

  • Pingback: osos de peluche()

  • Pingback: Best Buy Smartphone Accessories()

  • Pingback: Top Bankruptcy Lawyers McKinney Texas()

  • Pingback: money()

  • Pingback: robot opciones binarias()

  • Pingback: Free Credit Report()

  • Pingback: cocuk eskort bayan()

  • Pingback: order food denver()

  • Pingback: Cocuk Escort Bayan()

  • Pingback: cocuk escort()

  • Pingback: child escort girl()

  • Pingback: business reviews()

  • Pingback: business reviews()

  • Pingback: viagra()

  • Pingback: chinakopen.nl()

  • Pingback: proofreading()

  • Pingback: sex shop melbourne cbd()

  • Pingback: cocuk pornosu()

  • Pingback: cocuk pornosu()

  • Pingback: spam()

  • Pingback: msphack.com.pl()

  • Pingback: cocuk escort()

  • Pingback: cocuk escort()

  • Pingback: escort in nottingham()

  • Pingback: hardware-online-stores.com-�LED LIGHTING()

  • Pingback: payday loans()

  • Pingback: payday loans()

  • Pingback: casino()

  • Pingback: pornhub()

  • Pingback: bay street dermatology()

  • Pingback: https://www.levitradosageus24.com/levitra-and-generic-ed/()

  • Pingback: Landon()

  • Pingback: Look At This()

  • Pingback: Tablet Binder()

  • Pingback: cheap yeezy shoes()

  • Pingback: memory training()

  • Pingback: vessel arrest in tunisia()

  • Pingback: worldstores vouchers()

  • Pingback: creapure()

  • Pingback: sex discount()

  • Pingback: thanks()

  • Pingback: home page()

  • Pingback: Globalandia()

  • Pingback: Atasehir Escort()

  • Pingback: brain smart()

  • Pingback: canada goose()

  • Pingback: tampa fl spa()

  • Pingback: Norma()

  • Pingback: Camera & Photo()

  • Pingback: Candace()

  • Pingback: david michael sammon()

  • Pingback: PS4()

  • Pingback: Sekolah Tinggi Manajemen Informatika dan Komputer()

  • Pingback: دانلود رایگان فیلم()

  • Pingback: photo video maker()

  • Pingback: study for CDL()

  • Pingback: www.google.com()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم()

  • Pingback: where can i buy instagram likes()

  • Pingback: Frontistiria Thessaloniki kentro()

  • Pingback: tesco vegan cheese()

  • Pingback: Acne Facial Treatments Sea Ranch Lakes()

  • Pingback: loan sharks()

  • Pingback: Facial Spa Services Southwest Ranches, Florida()

  • Pingback: Online personal trainer()

  • Pingback: Facial Spa Services Fort Lauderdale()

  • Pingback: Acne Facial Treatments Sunrise()

  • Pingback: Writing a thesis statement()

  • Pingback: payday loans bad credit()

  • Pingback: Indoor Attractions in Dubai()

  • Pingback: rumbletalk alternative()

  • Pingback: Subscription Box()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم سلام بمبئی()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم()

  • Pingback: Gourmet Popcorn from Premier Popcorn()

  • Pingback: ​دانلود سریال()

  • Pingback: ​دانلود()

  • Pingback: www.panelepodlogowe1.pl()

  • Pingback: swtor credits()

  • Pingback: oakville contractors()

  • Pingback: wow gold()

  • Pingback: Masters 2017()

  • Pingback: gutter cleaning company()

  • Pingback: make money()

  • Pingback: cool motorcycle helmetsbest motorcycle helmet()

  • Pingback: split system()

  • Pingback: strona glówna portalu samochody()

  • Pingback: coconut oil()

  • Pingback: Medicare Supplement Plans 2018()

  • Pingback: DUI lawyer Pinal County()

  • Pingback: best motorcycle helmets()

  • Pingback: high pressure dust control()

  • Pingback: bb guns()

  • Pingback: wedding speeches()

  • Pingback: Foro Atletico Madrid()

  • Pingback: free instagram followers()

  • Pingback: PureMature Lisa Ann Fucked By The Pool()

  • Pingback: web design education()

  • Pingback: Kamagra()

  • Pingback: Car Hire()

  • Pingback: adult coupons()

  • Pingback: online gambling()

  • Pingback: simply click the next internet site()

  • Pingback: Free shipping()

  • Pingback: Femme de menage Montreal()

  • Pingback: Instamate 2.0 Review()

  • Pingback: leki na erekcje()

  • Pingback: ducted air conditioner()

  • Pingback: nulled version tools()

  • Pingback: Led koplampen()

  • Pingback: bluetooth motorcycle helmet()

  • Pingback: Situs Main Judi Casino Online()

  • Pingback: green carpet cleaning()

  • Pingback: facebook tenerife()

  • Pingback: the four percent group()

  • Pingback: virker det her()

  • Pingback: Domestic Violence()

  • Pingback: Bathmate USA()

  • Pingback: MILF Porn()

  • Pingback: central heating()

  • Pingback: counseling, therapy, Silver Spring, Maryland()

  • Pingback: UPVC double glazed windows()

  • Pingback: دانلود آهنگ()

  • Pingback: gas ducted heating Melbourne()

  • Pingback: i want to give out money()

  • Pingback: wedding flowers queenstown()

  • Pingback: we love bogor()

  • Pingback: motorcycle helmets()

  • Pingback: kids telescope()

  • Pingback: Medicare Supplement Plans 2018()

  • Pingback: The Iranian TV Best series SHahrzad series Film()

  • Pingback: monitors()

  • Pingback: Berg trampolin()

  • Pingback: split system air conditioner installation()

  • Pingback: hundemadx()

  • Pingback: Castor oil for eyelashes()

  • Pingback: web hosting()

  • Pingback: Diamond engagement rings in Houston()

  • Pingback: skull helmets()

  • Pingback: iso 9001 standard()

  • Pingback: UPVC Double Glazed Windows()

  • Pingback: UPVC Double Glazed Windows()

  • Pingback: UC News()

  • Pingback: quick acne treatment()

  • Pingback: tiny pussy()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: Adult dating()

  • Pingback: pain treatment()

  • Pingback: Registrar INPI()

  • Pingback: BYOD security()

  • Pingback: Virtual Assistant()

  • Pingback: min mand snorker()

  • Pingback: hemorrhoids cure()

  • Pingback: goal setting()

  • Pingback: Temple aventure coureur 2017()

  • Pingback: abul hussain consultant()

  • Pingback: investments news and tips()

  • Pingback: Pinganillo()

  • Pingback: online casino gambling south Africa()

  • Pingback: quat tran trung quoc()

  • Pingback: real money casino USA()

  • Pingback: Learning Chinese videos()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: Stamps()

  • Pingback: you could check site now()

  • Pingback: eLearning company gamification()

  • Pingback: monthly seo packages()

  • Pingback: faucet direct Canada()

  • Pingback: affordable seo packages()

  • Pingback: multi seller ecommerce()

  • Pingback: wisata kuliner()

  • Pingback: desentupimento esgotos()

  • Pingback: شرکت پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: latino()

  • Pingback: Play Doh Surprise Eggs Balloon Pop()

  • Pingback: buy oce lol account()

  • Pingback: ormekur til hund()

  • Pingback: it disposal companies()

  • Pingback: sdisposing old computers()

  • Pingback: buy essay()

  • Pingback: propiedades jenjibre()

  • Pingback: Medigap Plans 2018()

  • Pingback: Diabetes Loophole Review()

  • Pingback: finger family()

  • Pingback: antique emerald ring()

  • Pingback: Photo Recovery()

  • Pingback: seo()

  • Pingback: lawyers()

  • Pingback: join sky telephone number()

  • Pingback: mlb baseball caps australia()

  • Pingback: خرید پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: Lashawn()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال شهرزاد فصل دوم قسمت چهارم()

  • Pingback: Mobile Coupon()

  • Pingback: درب یو پی وی سی()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال شهرزاد فصل دوم قسمت پنجم()

  • Pingback: Thomasine()

  • Pingback: 9512972181()

  • Pingback: Antioch Real Estate()

  • Pingback: https://profiles.wordpress.org/electronicscity329/()

  • Pingback: macys insite()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال شهرزاد()

  • Pingback: startups in India()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال شهرزاد فصل 2 قسمت 3()

  • Pingback: Intersport soldes été en ligne()

  • Pingback: dragons hack()

  • Pingback: pop over to this web-site()

  • Pingback: click homepage()

  • Pingback: Instrument()

  • Pingback: Hip-Hop()

  • Pingback: Sports Memorabilia Store()

  • Pingback: https://speakerdeck.com/mikejaos209()

  • Pingback: Cheap and cool Gadget()

  • Pingback: como comprar en estados unidos()

  • Pingback: iTunes Password Recovery()

  • Pingback: seo()

  • Pingback: french summer sales()

  • Pingback: poker online()

  • Pingback: https://falschgeldkaufen.blogspot.com/2017/01/wo-kann-ich-falschgeld-kaufen.html()

  • Pingback: Friv()

  • Pingback: Egyptian cotton duvets()

  • Pingback: Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags()

  • Pingback: womens detox()

  • Pingback: Poker Online Uang Asli()

  • Pingback: Tシャツの縫製()

  • Pingback: پنجره()

  • Pingback: 2 دانلود قسمت هشتم سریال شهرزاد فصل دوم()

  • Pingback: MAG250()

  • Pingback: love compatibility with aries and cancer()

  • Pingback: Low Cost Hotels()

  • Pingback: entertainment()

  • Pingback: kurtis()

  • Pingback: groin wrap()

  • Pingback: UoN()

  • Pingback: pokemon song()

  • Pingback: Susan Ayn()

  • Pingback: Google()

  • Pingback: Valor Amil Saúde()

  • Pingback: Minikert()

  • Pingback: clínica de Internação()

  • Pingback: Plano Amil Saúde()

  • Pingback: Storage Units in Lauderhill()

  • Pingback: kdi()

  • Pingback: home remedies for wrinkles and fine lines()

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)