Taxpayer Awards Winners Announced

We had a packed house at the 2008 Taxpayer Awards, broadcasted live from the Portland Airport Shilo Inn on the Victoria Taft KPAM 860AM radio program. Some of the guest presenters (photo) Rep. Kim Thatcher, Rep. Jerry Krummel, Rep. Dennis Richardson, Rep. Linda Flores and TAO President Don McIntire. Sponsors were Oregon Executive Club and the Taxpayer Association of Oregon

Thomas Jefferson Award:
George Taylor, State Climatologist
In defense of science over politics: State Climatologist George Taylor has made national impact with his demonstratable problems with many global warming theories. Governor Kulongoski has been trying to use a technicality to forbid him from using the title State Climatologist and left him out of the Governor’s Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions.

More results below:Wiener Politician Award:
Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Jeff Merkley.
The two legislative leaders approved an astonishing 21% budget growth with the help of $856 million in new taxes and 44 fee increases. To prevent future citizen dissent, they also passed tough new petition regulations making it twice as hard for citizens to petition their government. They sent voters an anti-property rights ballot measure (Measure 49) and an anti-double majority protection ballot measure and wrote their own highly deceptive ballot title.

Pork Barrel Project:
Million Dollar Consultant Mistake
Portland paid a consultant firm $900,000 to save the city money. The consultant came up with only $61,000 in savings.

Bureaucratic Bungler:
Baby Gabriel goof-up
Two state panels tried to separate 2-year old baby Gabriel away from his Oregon foster parents and send him to Mexico (where he has never been and does not speak the language).

Golden Schnoz Award:
Foster parent gun rule: The Human Services Department tried to void second amendment gun rights for foster parents who had concealed gun permits.

Government Innovation Award:
Feds inquire on missing Oregon roads: The Federal Highway Department made headlines when it criticized Metro’s transportation plan. The plan ignored people who drive cars which was the primary purpose of the plan.

Excellence in Journalism Awards:
— “$1 billion can’t cut class size” Scott Learn & Steven Carter, The Oregonian
— “Truth And Consequences” Nigel Jacquiss, Willamette Week
— “95% of drivers buckle up, so why the tickets?” Ryan Knutson, The Oregonian
— “Are those cranes or an inventory glut on the horizon?”, Ellen Lewis, Brainstorm Magazine

To see full list of nominees Click Here:

Share
  • Alan

    I heard George Taylor on the Taft program last night. He mentioned his job was changing, did anyone else hear that?

    I hope the Governer is not stripping away his office.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    God forbid someone should rock the boat and disturb the calm still waters of the consensus as Taylor did.

    Heretics must be silenced.

  • Jared o

    Taylor’s office never existed. It was a self-created title, like calling himself the King of Oregon.

  • dean

    Its over folks. The next president will be named McCain, Obama, or Clinton, and any of the 3 are going to start moving this country (at long last) to join the rest of the civilized world in dealing with climate change.

    Mr. Taylor’s days of doing damage are soon to be over.

    • John Fairplay

      So Africa and Asia aren’t “civilized” eh? Racist much?

    • jim karlocik

      *dean:* Its over folks. The next president will be named McCain, Obama, or Clinton, and any of the 3 are going to start moving this country (at long last) to join the rest of the civilized world in dealing with climate change.
      *JK* You appear to be just salivating over the possibility of having our standard of living back turned back 100 years. Do you not care about the poor who will be hurt the worst?

      *dean:* Mr. Taylor’s days of doing damage are soon to be over.
      *JK:* You are showing your ignorance. ALL of your top rung “evidence” has been shown false:
      1. Al Gore’s hockey stick: Wrong and probably a fraud.
      2. 1998 was NOT the warmest year in decades. It is TIED with 1934 as the warmest year since the “little ice age”, 400 years ago.
      3. CO2 is NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS – water vapor is.
      4. Historically, CO2 has risen AFTER warming by an average of 800 years. (It is entirely possible that the current rise in CO2 is due to the warming, as we come out of the “little ice age”, causing out gassing of CO2 from the oceans.)
      5. CO2 has never been shown to cause warming.

      You believing fools, idiots and liars on global warming, just as you follow fools, idiots and liars on smart growth.
      You really need to educate yourself form sources beyond the Sierra Club Weekly Reader.
      You can start here:
      junkscience.com
      icecap.us
      climateaudit.org
      CO2Science.org
      science and public policy.org
      climate-skeptic.com
      WorldClimateReport.com
      https://www.iceagenow.com
      *Let me be perfectly clear* these sites are not the last word, but they are a gold mine of information to track down peer reviewed papers that challenge the orthodoxy. If you actually look at the data, you will see why I say you have been following fools, idiots and liars.

      BTW: Historically, CO2 has been at levels many times that of today, as well as less than today. One can make a case that the plants on earth have been responsible for run-away carbon sequestration that will end life on earth as, gradually, over millennia, there will be to little CO2 to sustain life.

      Thanks
      JK

  • Walt

    Why the personal attack dean?

    If you ever saw a presentation by Taylor you would know he delivers nothing but the truth and science.

    If that’s damaging to the IPCC-Gore so be it.

  • Harry

    dean is just a fool/tool for the leftist propaganda machine. Walt, don’t flatter yourself that you can reason with the wingbat.

    George is still employed at OSU, but Kulo has created another insitute at OSU, to be headed up by somebody with much less critical thinking skills than George, and a much browner nose.

  • Walt

    and dean will accept ahead of time everything coming from this new office, then proudly echo it like the good trooper he is

    • dean

      Not personal…I don’t know him. But I suspect he knows better.

      Actually John…most countries in Africa and Asia are on board with climate change reality. The US and China are the main holdouts. Since there are Chinese living in many nations, and the US is multi-racial, it is not a “racist” question, but a national policy one.

      What you all need to ask yourselves is, if global warming is merely “leftist propaganda,” there must be an awful lot of leftists in the world. Your right wing island appears to be disapearing under a rising sea, so you might want to invest in an ark. You can invite 2 of every type of conservative on board: social, economic, and neocons. Oh…and don’t forget the remaining global warming doubters.

      And…to return to my initial point…you get McCain, Obama or Clinton in 08. Where does that leave you on this issue? The dustbin of history? Railing against the coming of the night? Calling Dean names?

      • eagle eye

        Dean, I think a lot of people in other countries give lip service to the climate change hype, but that doesn’t mean they are going to do anything about it. It’s just about all talk, so far. World greenhouse gas emissions just keep going up year after year. Even in sclerotic old Europe they’re not getting very far in reducing them.

      • Steve Plunk

        Dean,

        You must understand the reason those third world countries are behind climate change measures is purely economics. The proposed rules would do little to change their way of doing things while drastically damaging our economy. They would find themselves having distinct advantages in manufacturing and trade. What country wouldn’t want to play under those kinds of rules?

        In the mean time more and more scientists are rethinking the whole idea of human caused climate change (notice global warming is no longer used much since the data is failing to support the theory). In fact we are in a cooling trend of at least six to eight years. Now if the kooks will stop using anecdotal evidence of climate change we might start to hear about the real science.

        • eagle eye

          Though I myself am somewhat skeptical about the global warming scare, there is little doubt that the bulk of scientific opinion of people working in the field goes against my skepticism. Calling them “kooks” and saying that their evidence is “anecdotal” is not going to cut it. I’m afraid that to most people, people who talk you are the ones who sound like the kooks. It shows in the way that public opinion has gradually turned to the conclusion that something should be done to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

          To have any chance of turning public opinion, some kind of more nuanced and more subtle posture is going to be needed. Bush clearly wasn’t up to it.

  • Anonymous

    How many times the Earth would fit inside the sun?

    The Sun’s diameter is about 100 times that of the Earth. So, you’d have to line up 100 Earth’s end-to-end to stretch across the face of the sun

    Or, about 1,000,000 Earths would fit inside the sun.

    How could the sun have anything to do with global warming?

  • devietro

    Glad to see that the awards went well. I felt a little down when I saw that my favorite candidates Bucky and Snowball did not end up winners but all the choices are good ones.

  • Jerry

    Dean – I already know you will say it is due to global warming, but come on, how stupid is that??
    Anyway, folks, here is the latest news from Reuters:

    CHENZHOU, China, Feb 4 (Reuters) – Millions remained stranded in China on Monday ahead of the biggest holiday of the year as parts of the country suffered their coldest winter in a century.

    Freezing weather has killed scores of people and left travellers stranded before the Lunar New Year, or Spring Festival — the only opportunity many people have to take a holiday all year.

    • dean

      Jerry….I know you are smarter than to use single data points to refute an observed phenomenon of many decades of warming over the spread of the earth, so I won’t point that out to you.

      Anon…please explain? You lost me. Sun is big…earth small…therefore what?

      • jim karlocik

        *Dean* Jerry….I know you are smarter than to use single data points to refute an observed phenomenon of many decades of warming over the spread of the earth, so I won’t point that out to you.
        *JK:* 1998 was a single data point, but your side headlined it. Arctic ice loss this year is a single data point – your side headlined it. In typical fashion, they are not headlining the fact that the ice has recovered to above average.
        *Further you make the same mistake yourself:* Climate is not a decades phenomena. It is a cyclical phenomena with cycle lengths that vary from decades to millennia. The fools, idiots and liars that you follow ignore that fact. They also ignore the sun, which has been known for over 200 years to affect agriculture prices. More recently it has been shown that the solar cycle length correlates better with the earth’s temperature than CO2 does with temperature.

        But the fools, idiots and liars that you follow ignore this because the real goal of one faction is to de-industrialize society to save the earth from their imaginary hobgoblins.

        Another faction, including Al Gore, his Wall Street and Silicon Valley conspirators hope to get rich by creating a panic. I presume that you don’t care that Al Gore is making millions off of his plot to scare us all.

        Then there are those many BILLIONS in research money that would disappear if there is no panic.

        *JK:* Here is a really good reason to be very concerned about those “single data points” – they are consistent with predictions being made by some solar scientists that the natural warming cycle has ended (the earth has been cooling for the last 9 years) and we may be on the cusp of a new cooling cycle. Those solar scientists have noted that the Sun has been very unusual in the last few decades and that now appears to be ending. That is the real danger – if we have another “little ice age”, it will kill millions. The only good in this is that it will cause the fools, idiots and liars that you follow to finally shut up. They will have to tell us to de-industrialize to stop the ice age – like they tried in the 1970s.

        *Dean* Anon…please explain? You lost me. Sun is big…earth small…therefore what?
        *JK:* It’s the sun, see above. The solar hypothesis also explains cooling on other planets, CO2 doesn’t.

        Why don’t you follow some of these links with an open mind: DebunkingPortland.com/ClimateChange.htm and quit worrying about global warming, at least until those Viking farms emerge from under the glaciers.

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    To assume that man may be the cause of global warming and ignore the sun seems to discount a very big factor

    • dean

      I see. Well…the thing is…the sun was already there, but the greenhouse gasses had yet to be released into the atmosphere. Its not like the sun is getting hotter. Its that the heat it provides is not escaping back into space as quickly as it once did.

      • John Fairplay

        Uh, the sun actually is getting hotter.

  • Bob T.

    “Jerry….I know you are smarter than to use single data points to refute an observed phenomenon of many decades of warming over the spread of the earth, so I won’t point that out to you.”

    dean, that’s exactly what Gore and the IPCC has done. That’s why there is such broad and strong opposition.

    George Taylor and others have pointed that out quite specifically.

    It is you who clings to cherry picked data not the oppostion.
    So as you dwell on the essentailly single point of a few decades the greater historical and core sample records over a millenium show not one shred of calamity occuring.
    If you are incappable of looking at the complete record that IPCC/ Gore cherry pick from then you are not qualified to opine.

    So here again you are retarding the case before us as you do over and over again.
    George Taylor is an honest, impartial, expert on climate sciences who has provided a substantial collection of data from Gore’s own sources which debunks the Gore’s claims.

    I see you would prefer he be silenced just as anyone who may object to the rest of your propaganda.

    • Harry

      Harry: “dean is just a fool/tool for the leftist propaganda machine. Walt, don’t flatter yourself that you can reason with the wingbat.”

      BobT: “So here again you are retarding the case before us as you do over and over again.”

      So, if after reading all of the comments above, and dean’s attempts to refute the evidence, I rest my case. No, nothing ad hominem against dean, the person. But certainly beware when debating against dean’s feable logic.

      • dean

        Rather than re-litigate global warming with you all once again to no possible constructive end, I’ll just repeat…say hello to President McCain, Obama, or Clinton. Any of them are going to promote legislation, which will be passed by a Democratic congress, that puts the United States on a path to reduce carbon emissions. You can whine, stomp your feet, hold your breath, call me more names, and it won’t change a thing folks. Its as good as done.

        To JK…no, I’m not “salivating” over anything. In fact I hope you are all right and that global warming is a myth or mistake or hoax or anything but real. I do not relish the idea of 100 million impoverished Bangladesh people needing to find a new home on higher ground, and I don’t think it is going to be cheap or easy to wean ourselves off of coal and oil. I like my pickup truck as much as the next person.

        But the evidence is in, and I’ll stand solidly with the “fools, idiots, and liars” that include the National Science Foundation, NASA, IPCC, EPA, and every reputable scientific organization on the planet until THEY decide they were wrong,oops, big mistake…heh heh…Rush Limbaugh was right and we were wrong…sorry.

        • eagle eye

          Dean,

          Don’t be so sure the scientific argument is over — it’s not, and it will be a long time, probably a century or so, before it is. Things could change fairly rapidly at any time.

          OK, maybe McCain and Congress will pretend to do something about carbon emissions, like the rest of the world has done. They could even do something real, like build nuclear power plants on a crash basis. I would be all in favor of that. But raise the price of carbon energy enough to make a difference? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

        • jim karlocik

          *dean:* But the evidence is in, and I’ll stand solidly with the “fools, idiots, and liars” that include the National Science Foundation, NASA, IPCC, EPA, and every reputable scientific organization on the planet until THEY decide they were …
          *JK:* Don’t you feel that you should look at the evidence, instead of just blindly follow some god? Actually to NOT look at the evidence is avoiding your responsibility as a voter in a democracy:

          BTW, how do you reconcile these facts with your belief:
          *1.* According to the best temperature records in the world (those maintained by Al Gore’s science advisor at NASA) 1998 is only tied with 1934 for the warmest year since the little ice age. Is being tied with a year ½ century ago reason for alarm? Especially since we have been cooling since (otherwise some later year would be tied with , or warmer than, 1934)
          *2.* H2O is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2.
          *3*. Al Gore’s hockey stick had been proven seriously wrong.
          *4.* Temperature rise leads CO2 rise by about 800 years in ice core data.
          *5.* At the bottom of the Greenland ice they found trees, dating to 800-1000 AD. That means that part of the Greenland ice shelf is recent, since the medieval warm period. Therefore if we warmed up enough to melt that part of Greenland, it would be nothing new.

          Dean, each of the above is from quality science, to ignore them and follow some “expert” just shows the quality of your thinking. CaCa.

          Those “fools, idiots, and liars” are leading us into the greatest scientific fraud the world has ever seen. Including Al Gore who said: *I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is..*

          Open your mind. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

          Thanks
          JK

  • Bob T.

    Ah there’s dean, never pointing to a signle piece of science.
    Just blindly accepts the summaries and conclusions without so much as a shred of curiosity.
    Perfect dean, you have you comfy zone.

    • dean

      Bob…let’s face it. Any evidence I would point to is something you would choose to not believe, so what is the point? If the scientists have not convinced you then how could I?

  • Bob T.

    Let’s face it?
    There you go dean, playing make believe. It is you who fails to face the science. Instead choosing to blindly follow the cult like a good liberal with your avoiding the very science you claim supports the IPCC.
    You seemingly fear discovering that George Taylor, and many other experts, have provided a much more complete and clear presentation of the science.
    So stick with your comfort zone that allows you to justify all the wacky policies the left dreams up.

    • dean

      Yes Bob…those whacky leftists at the National Science Foundation, those crazy left wing-nuts at NASA….why believe them when you have….George Taylor?

  • Bob T.

    No dean you’re doing it again. Hiding behind the faulty conclusions.

    You just can’t force yourself to review and address the “science” from NSA, NASA, NOAA and other solid sources.
    As George Taylor and others have. If you did you would make the same conclusions he did. He has no bias or conflicts at all.
    Like many others.
    Yet you imagine he must and avoid the truth.

    • dean

      Bob…I don’t know what Taylor’s motivations or conclusions are and I don’t care. He can submit his findings to the same peer review journals that reputable climate scientists do. If he is onto something important, we will know soon enough, and he can win the Nobel in a few years. If instead he can’t get his work published, and instead goes around his fellow scientists to reach out to those, like yourself who want to believe global warming is a big lie or mistake, then I’m not interested. Okay?

  • Bob T.

    dean you much have some sort of mental block.

    The point isn’t what Taylor’s “motivations” are, or what his “findings” are, or what he has “peer reviewed” or what he is “onto”, or any “Nobel” or what he has “published” OR what I “believe.”

    I don’t care what you thhink about all of that. That’s not the point.

    Don’t divert and try and get this through your block.

    The central most germane point is what the unedited, nonsegmented, nonfiltered collection IPCC supporting science itself actualy shows.
    Not Taylors words but the FULL IPCC supporting science.

    Any fool who has looked at both the IPCC science and the FULL unedited IPCC science can see the difference as well as the incomplete and selective version the IPCC uses.
    Selective science which then carries forward in creating their models.

    Forget the other rhetoric, and say specificly that you are not interested in the full IPCC science.

    • dean

      Bob…fair enough question. Of course I am interested in the “full science,” but not being myself a climate science expert, I am content to rely on the synthesis and conslusions provided by those with credibility on the subject. It is not a wise use of my time to attempt to understand all the details and then 2nd guess the experts. It is the JOB of the IPCC to synthesize the science in order to make it digestible for policy makers, and that does include separating the wheat from the chaff.

      If George Taylor has a better explanation for the data (by sifting through the chaff) than the IPCC does, he knows the channels that he should present his analysis through, and it does NOT include the weather channel. That is MY point.

      • dean

        Bob…a final point from me on this issue. This is all about managing risk. On the one hand we have the risk associated with a rapidly warming earth, and all that goes with it. On the other a risk that if we try to solve the problem we could bankrupt ourselves. I see the former as a greater risk than the latter.

  • Bob T.

    dean,

    Come on. What a cop out.
    You don’t have to be a climate science expert to read the IPCC graphs and other data. It’s as plain as simple math.
    You dont have to be a math professor either.
    That’s why I said
    “Any fool who has looked at both the IPCC science and the FULL unedited IPCC science can see the difference as well as the incomplete and selective version the IPCC uses.

    How can you honestly claim you “interested in the “full science,” then ginore it?

    You’re like a Bushie still buying into WMDs when the intelligence says otherwise. Were you content to rely on the Bush administration?

    It is not a wise use of your time to be touting something that isn’t true.

    Stop making exuces.

    It takes very little time to see the truth.

    And AGAIN, unlike the IPCC, it’s not Taylor’s own “synthesis and conslusions” I am suggesting you consider.
    It’s the IPCC background science.

    You don’t need to “understand all the details” either.
    The basic overview is very straight forward.
    IPCC has synthesized the science to mean something other than what the science indicates.

    AGAIN, that is the central point here.

    It doesn’t matter if Geroge Taylor or Britany Spears shows you the science.

    The IPCC has twisted the wheat and the chaff together.

    George Taylor merely shows people the cold hard IPCC science which needs little “explaination” and no sifting through the chaff.

    You see dean the IPCC is doing what you think Taylor is doing.

    This is all about managing the truth. There is no risk associated with a rapidly warming earth. The IPCC science does not show
    any unusual rapidly warming earth.
    The real risk we have is try to solve a problem that doesn’t exist with policies that don;t work even if the problem exisited.

    If you choose to make things up, like Taylor sifting through the chaff, so that you can cling to what is flase then you have no authentic interest in science at all.

    • dean

      Bob…now you have me curious. Do you have any background in science?

      You tell me to simply “read the IPCC graphs and other data.” Well, the problem there is that one does not “simply read” data. The graphs themselves are simplifications of gazillions of data points. I mean…how many weather stations and temperature readings and ice cores and glacier measurements and atmospheric samples do you think are out there? You want me to read all that? Do you want to read all that?

      Data has to be analyzed, numbers crunched, one bit stacked against another bit, and so forth in the search for patterns, consistencies, and inconsistencies. I’m not qualified, and I suspect you are not either.

      The “truth” is, based on the best available data and analysis of that data, acording to the world body of scientists who have wrapped themselves around this problem, that the earth’s atmosphere is warming, that greenhouse gases are accumulating, that models confirm a relationship between these, and that if we don’t reduce our input we are running a very high risk of big problems.

      I don’t have to make anything up. Taylor is entitled to his opinion, which by the way (based on his writings and lectures) trot out the same odd set of disconects that:

      1) the world is not really warming
      2) Anyway our measurements are not reliable so you can’t prove it
      3) But it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses
      4) Although it could be the water vapor or sun or clouds or…?
      5) And anyway warming will be good for us

      I mean…is it or isn’t it warming George? if it is, why do you show us photos of badly placed temperature gages and say we don’t measure temperature properly? And why then do you say okay it is warming but it must be natural causes? And so forth…

      His line of argument does not raise any suspicions in you Bob?

      Enough said. I’m outta here.

      • jim karlocik

        *Dean:* Bob…let’s face it. Any evidence I would point to is something you would choose to not believe, so what is the point?
        *JK:*
        *1.* Point me to some evidence that CO2 leads temperature increase in the Antarctic ice cores.
        *2.* Point me to some evidence that says the USHCN data maintained, at NASA, by Al Gore’s “science” advisor is wrong when it says that 1998 is tied with 1934 as the warmest year in that record. Then point me to some evidence that the USHCN data says we have warmed since 1998. Find evidence that the USHCN is not the best in the world. Now explain to me why the USA is NOT warming and the rest of the world is (hint: data quality.)
        *3.* Point me to some evidence that H2O is NOT a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2.
        *4.* Point me to some evidence that they DID NOT find trees, dating to 800-1000 AD under The Greenland ice shelf.
        *5.* Point me to some evidence that it is appropriate to include bristle cone pines as temperature proxies, like Mann did, to get Al Gore’s “hockey stick”

        Of course, by “evidence” I mean quality journals, not the Sierra Club Weekly Reader, or The Sky Is Falling Now Quarterly.

        BTW, the IPCC is NOT a scientific body, *it is political body* charged with the task of evaluating man’s effect on climate. With that charge, what are the odds that it will conclude that there is none?

        Get your head out of the sand – look at the evidence. (Have you even bothered to read some of the skeptics?)

        Thanks
        JK

      • jim karlocik

        *Dean:* I don’t have to make anything up. Taylor is entitled to his opinion, which by the way (based on his writings and lectures) trot out the same odd set of disconects that:

        1) the world is not really warming
        2) Anyway our measurements are not reliable so you can’t prove it
        3) But it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses
        4) Although it could be the water vapor or sun or clouds or…?
        5) And anyway warming will be good for us

        *JK:* Wow, now you show that you actually know about the skeptics case, but choose to mock it, instead of learn from it (typical progressive?)
        You could have learned that:
        1) The data quality is poor, at best, so we can’t be sure if we really are warming. Evidence of this is the recent error corrections made by Al gore;’s science adviser at NASA which put 1998 at, no longer the warmest year in a millennia, but merely tied with 1934. But instead of thinking, you choose mockery.
        2) CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to H2O, but you choose to mock Taylor, instead of learning something.
        3) Gathering evidence points to the sun, but you choose to mock Taylor, instead of learning something.
        4) Will warming hurt or help us? Al Gore dwells on the minuses to keep his millions flowing into his bank account, but there are also pluses:
        * Better agricultural productivity.
        * Fewer deaths result from heat than from cold.
        * Ocean levels rising is pure conjecture – oceans have been rising for eons, but the rate of rise has bee slowing.

        Why don’t’ you open your mind and learn something, instead of listen to doom and gloom from those that make money off of gloom and doom? That includes anyone who says the sky is falling, but send me money to stop it – you know the progressive implementation of Jimmy Swaggert.

        Thanks
        JK

  • Bob T.

    Well now you’re just on a merry go round.
    You just made up a strawman version of Taylor’s presentation.

    And now you want to know if “I” have any background in science?

    Why is that? Taylor certainly does, but importantly the science he provides comes from those you trust.
    You just can’t face the prospect of the IPCC distoring what their own science indicates.
    But they have.
    Like I said,
    If you choose to make things up, like Taylor sifting through the chaff, so that you can cling to what is false then you have no authentic interest in science at all.

    Again,,,,,
    The point isn’t what Taylor’s “motivations” are, or what his “findings” are, or what he has “peer reviewed” or what he is “onto”, or any “Nobel” or what he has “published” OR what I “believe.”

    I don’t care what you think about all of that. That’s not the point.

    Yet you bury yourself in that instead of the science.

    The central most germane point is what the unedited, nonsegmented, nonfiltered collection IPCC supporting science itself actualy shows.
    Not Taylors words but the FULL IPCC supporting science.

    *Any fool who has looked at both the IPCC science and the FULL unedited IPCC science can see the difference as well as the incomplete and selective version the IPCC uses.
    Selective science which then carries forward in creating their models.*

    Forget the other rhetoric, and say specificly that you are not interested in the full IPCC science.

    • dean

      Bob…I’ll specifically say that I don’t want to spend any further time on this merry go round with you, and leave it at that. Have a great weekend. Tons of good snow up there for skiing. But wait….doesn’t that mean….?

  • Bob T.

    Yes, and I’ll be skiing.
    It means we are having the third highest record snow up there.
    The highest was in 1977 and another was 2000. So the 3 highest amounts are relatively recent and all during the claimed unusual warming caused by man.
    I’m not on the merry go round with you.

  • Bo

    It may be record snow now, but the trend is not in Mt. Hood’s favor.