Why Gas Costs So Much

Contrary to what Ed Markey thinks, oil companies are not the reason our gas is so expensive. The primary culprits are Markey and his do-nothing ilk in congress. For Thirty years they’ve done nothing significant to address the root causes of high gas prices and everything to exacerbate the situation. The issues affecting gas prices are as follows:

1. Increasing domestic and world demand.

Not only are Americans using more oil than ever, but we now face competition for that oil from India and China whose rapidly growing economies consume many times the petroleum they did just a few years ago. This problem will only get worse. Even if Americans significantly reduce their oil usage, it is unlikely that China and India will stall their economic growth so we can pay less at the pump.

2. Decreasing domestic supplies.

When Bill Clinton took office about one third of our oil was from foreign sources. When he left office about two thirds of our oil was from foreign sources. Although it shows a lack of foresight and leadership in this area, President Clinton cannot be singled out for blame, see point eight below. President Bush has done nothing to address this situation in his seven years in office. Like so many of his initiatives, he announced a great plan and then let it fizzle. If we want more oil we either have to increase our dependence on foreign sources and outbid others vying for the same crude, increasing the price even more, or start drilling domestically in places we have set off limits like ANWR and off the coasts of Oregon, California and Florida.

3. We can’t make more gas.

Even if we suddenly discovered a 500 year domestic supply of oil it wouldn’t do anything to increase the availability of gasoline. Twenty years ago our refineries were operating at 60-70% of capacity. Today they’re operating at 100% capacity. We haven’t built a new refinery in thirty years and the difficulty of permitting a new refinery or upgrading existing refineries and the deluge of lawsuits from environmental groups that would accompany any such effort make it unlikely that any oil company will attempt to build a new refinery.

4. Umpteen different gasoline blends.

A minimum of 18 different blends of gasoline must be produced at any given moment. Blends not only differ from region to region, but from summer to winter. Gas made in Texas cannot be used in Oregon. This is why you see gas prices spike in an area when a refinery experiences even a brief shutdown. The establishment of one federal standard for gasoline would have a small impact on overall retail prices, but would do a lot to even out price spikes due to regional shortages.

5. You and me.

How many of us plan our shopping and leisure trips to reduce our miles driven? How many of us have ever said “even thought I can easily afford it, I’m not going to go on that weekend camping/fishing/hiking trip in the car because I want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?” How many of us are trading in whatever we drive for Prius’s or Matrixes? How many of us can? I don’t know about you, but it would be impossible for me to drive a client and their family around in one of these. Ever try to fit three adults and three kids in a Prius? Remember too that the $20,000 for a new high mileage car is way out of the reach of many people. How many of us have substituted a vacation in Paris or Mexico for a week at home relaxing in the backyard to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? How many of us would go through the expense, inconvenience and trauma of selling our homes every time we got a new job so we could be closer to work and reduce our commute? Even the most ardent greenie is unlikely to do most of this. I may batch my shopping trips, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to give up camping, fishing and hiking. Judging by the crowds at the lakes and trailheads The kind of draconian lifestyle changes that would be required of us to have a significant and long term effect on gas prices are unlikely to be voluntarily adopted.

6. Illegal aliens.

Before you write this off as a wackjob comment, remember that estimates are that there are 20 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and just like legal residents, most of the adults drive. Think about what a 7-10% drop in demand would do to gas prices. This is not a judgement on the illegal alien issue, merely a statement of fact.

7. Deficit spending.

The value of the American Dollar has gone down thirty percent in the last six years, attributed largely to our continued fiscal irresponsibility. Those are the dollars that buy middle east oil.

8. Lack of Presidential and Congressional will.

The source of all the previous problems. Our government has done nothing to really address the issue of our dependence on foreign oil since the first “gas crisis” in 1973. Conspiracy theorists and the not-so-bright blame the oil companies and cite record profits as proof. If the oil companies made NO profit at all it would reduce the price of a gallon of gas by 10 to 15 cents a gallon. As of my fill up today, that still leaves $3.25. Want to explain that Ed Markey? Oil companies are not in the business of solving the country’s energy problems any more than the baker is in the business of solving the issue of rising wheat costs. They are in the business of finding, extracting, refining and selling petroleum products. We elect presidents and congress people to address issues of national concern. For thirty years the only solutions they’ve implemented are higher gas mileage standards for fleet vehicles and the debacle of corn ethanol. The former is like bailing the Titanic with a Dixie Cup and the latter is like ramming the iceberg a few more times just for good measure. Just once I’d like to see an oil company official really lay it on the line when hauled up before congress in a show trial. “It’s your fault you grandstanding, do-nothing @##$%.”

Even if we were to open up the entire U.S. toi drilling, build 100 new refineries, adopt a single gas standard, drive a whole lot less, kick out all the illegals and balance our budget it would merely be delaying the inevitable for a few more years.

There are only four things we can do to end our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices:

1. Increase domestic production of domestic oil and increase refining capacity.

Akin to bailing the Titanic with a larger bucket, but the only one available to us in the short term.

2. Increase vehicle mileage standards even further.

As previously stated, a short term solution akin to bailing the Titanic with a Dixie Cup.

3. Drive less.

Fat chance.

4. Find another energy source for our vehicular transportation.

The only real possibility for this is electricity, but this would involve the two herculean tasks of dramatically increasing our electrical production capacity, which could really be done with coal or nuclear power (and only nuclear will never run out), and building a national infrastructure of recharging stations. Even though we now have battery technology that would allow us to recharge an electric car in 15 to 30 minutes, the range still maxes out at about 150 miles.

One thing is absolutely certain, if our so-called leaders continue to bury their heads in the sand and engage in useless posturing we are eventually in for a very rude awakening and an economic depression the likes of which we’ve never imagined.

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 145 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • rinowatch

    The Bakken formation in North Dakota may hold up to 400 billion barrels of oil, much more oil than in Alaska’s estimated 16 billion barrels.

    Source: https://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/06/20/news/state/doc4497e42f6e8e5430204114.txt

    The environmental wacko’s are driving gasoline prices up as well, don’t you agree?

    • Tim Lyman

      The blame rests squarely on the legislative and executive branches of our federal government. The choice of whether or not to pursue effective policy has been theirs alone. Environmental extremists do not set or implement policy. While they are a convenient scapegoat, it’s the fools in government who bow to their whims who are to blame – especially Republicans who have done so out of fear.

      • RinoWatch

        Thank you for expanding on my point. The Republicans (RINO’s) who are gutless to standup to the E-Wacko’s are to blame.

        Nothing will change as long as we have a bunch of prissy politicians such as Gordon Smith, etc.

  • Jerry

    Ed Markey could not run an oil company if his life depended on it. People like him are so ignorant of the realities of economics that it makes what they say meaningless.

    Your comments are right on the mark and should be required reading for these critics who are just trolling for sound bites. What puffery!

    One other reason gas is so expensive, that I believe you left out, is taxes.

    State and federal taxes on gas in Oregon total 42.4 cents per gallon! And what do we get for that money? Potholes, no new roads, an ODOT that does nothing each and every year yet spends billions, and free rides for criminals (light rail).

    When oil prices are high you should buy EXXON and enjoy the profits.

    And/or ride a bike.

    • doc

      why dont we all get together mostly the rich poll our money dig a few wells .produce some oil

  • John Fairplay

    We are seeing, I think the first faint stirrings of a public demand that this problem be dealt with. At $3.00 – $4.00 a gallon, it begins to pinch a little. Now, if gas prices remain where they are, in five years everyone will be accustomed to them, and the demand will fade. The reality is that we are at least a full decade (and probably more like 25 -50 years) and billions (or trillions) of dollars away from any system that will replace oil consumption. The best solution would be to remove government restrictions on oil capacity development, and take away the subsidies from oil and all other energy types and let them fight it out in the private market.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Look, this is about the single most ridiculous problem out there. Now I know some might say I am being simplistic but why don’t we just start drilling for oil ourselves? The Chinese are going to be drilling more and more in the Gulf of Mexico. Does anyone out there think they are going to be any more environmentally friendly to sea turtles, dolphins and whales than evil American corporations? How about drilling in Alaska more?

    The bottom line is, by insisting on keeping every single domestic or near domestic geographic area unsullied by American oil rigs, we are simply exporting whatever environmental damage that results to other areas of the globe, or relegating it to other corporations in the case of the Gulf. The oil will get drilled for regardless, and its about time we realized that.

    As for the refinery problem, I’ve got a real simple solution for that one: Build the refinery, surround it with a dense forest ring and build a damn bike path around that and stick a Starbucks every 100 yards or so on the path. Those that would otherwise tie up the courts with environmental lawsuits and whining will instantly be transformed into happy ninnies gladly circling outside the forest ringed refinery. Dull little roulette balls gleefully chipper in their helmets and emasculating spandex outfits endlessly circling instead of making life harder for us all. The Rapture would clearly be at hand in such a moment.

  • Bob Clark

    The Republicans blew it big time earlier this decade when they didn’t use their majority to open up drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and other offshore areas like off the coast of South Florida where Cuba is planning to drill anyways. These measures would have dropped our oil imports by some 5 to 10 percent. Building the Alaskan natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay would have moved this number closer to 10 percent (in energy equivalents). This would have brought about secondary affects which would have also lowered oil prices. Nearly 50% of the U.S trade deficit is in oil and natural gas imports. Reducing these imports would have slowed the decent of the international value of the U.S dollar, and this would have slowed the rate of increase in oil prices. Also, an extra million barrel a day in oil production would increase world oil supply surplus capacity by 50% or more.

    Longer term (5 to 7 years), conventional oil production does look like it will possibly hit a plateau worldwide. The U.S may have dug itself a hole because it will take decades to build a nuclear industry sizeable enough to displace shortages in oil. It will even take several years to turn over the auto fleet to a more fuel efficient stock.

    And you know people don’t seem to recognize that for all the railing against “straw man oil” that the likes of Senator Wyden has done over the last couple of decades, we are in a worse position for it. To coin one popular talk show host’s words: “Wyden is about useful as a screendoor on a submarine.”

  • Jerry

    These silly people remind me of the politicians who say Wal Mart is bad and then buy all their campaign supplies there because the prices are the best.
    I thought the libs always wanted high gas prices. They should be very happy now, not complaining and whining like babies.

  • Anonymous

    “Dull little roulette balls gleefully chipper in their helmets and emasculating spandex outfits endlessly circling”

    You have a gift for prose!

  • Alan

    Well, we are still cheaper than Europe.

  • Dave A.

    As a long time investor in the energy industry, I have been well aware of most of the issues discussed in this article. As long as we have the same group of econmic illiterates running this country; I strongly suggest you put a substantial portion of your investments into companies like Exxon, Chevron, Valero and Transocean.

  • dean

    Alan…we are not “cheaper” than Europe if one factors in the Europeans went to more fuel efficient vehicles, mass transit, and cycling a long time ago, so their per mile transportation costs may be equal or less to driving an SUV here.

    There is a lot to take issue with in Tim’s post, and some things I can agree with him on. But just to focus on one point, under item #5, Tim writes that $20K is out of reach for many people (to buy a Prius) and then asks how many of us cancelled our vacations in Paris to hang in the backyard.

    It seems to me if one can afford a vacation in Paris, then one can afford a $20K Prius. And the larger point is that the Prius and other high mileage cars are seling quite well now, while gas guzzlers are not, which is why Toyota is making money while Ford and GM are tanking. This shift suggests that Americans can and will adapt to the market signal of high priced gasoline (as Europeans have done,) which contradicts much of the rest of his conclusions.

    • Chris McMullen

      “It seems to me if one can afford a vacation in Paris, then one can afford a $20K Prius…”

      And there is a perfect example of Dean’s ignorance.

    • Not Your Pal

      Hey Dean! – Thanks for displaying your economic illiteracy! A Vacation to Paris runs $3-6,000.00 depending on where one stays and how long they are there. It takes several of those to run up a $20.000.00 tab.

    • cc

      “Every major world scientific body that studies climate agrees on global warming theory.”

      Define “global warming theory”, will you dean?

      Do you mean the theory that the globe is warming, or do you mean the theory that the cause is primarily anthropogenic?

      Generic nonsense terms like “global warming theory” are just meaningless. If you are referring to anthropogenic global warming, say so. If you’re just tossing out “warming” without asserting man’s significant involvement therein, then your insistence that we must repent and change our ways is baseless.

      Not that that’s ever stopped you.

      The ‘theory’ of anthropogenic global warming is experiencing some scientific retrenchment of late and I fully expect that trend to continue. The hubris of “scientists” like Al Gore and his many sycophants is mind-boggling. I realize you’re all for scientific rigor as long as the results reinforce your preconceptions, but I wonder what will happen when facts contradict them?

      Science is about facts, not wishful thinking. Neither is it to be perverted as a prop for social engineering. The remarkable “consensus” you bray about is extraordinarily recent – with very few incontrovertible facts to support it. Think about it. Physicists were quite sure protons, electrons and neutrons were the smallest building blocks of all matter into the seventies. Today – not so much.

      The true test of this fevered ‘theory’ (more correctly, hypothesis) is whether predictions based upon it turn out to be true. When the myriad doomsday scenarios we’ve all heard and read about don’t materialize, when global temperatures plateau or actually drop, we’ll see whether your faith is shaken. At what point will you admit you’re wrong? What will it take? If this theory is correct, tell us what will happen and when. If you’re unable to cite specific events which will either validate or refute AGW, then you’re just blowing smoke.

      Oh, pardon the pun.

  • Anonymous

    You are such a tool dean.

  • Bob Clark

    Yeah, and it’s so productive to spend two hours traveling somewhere on a bus when you can get to the same location in 30 minutes or less driving an automobile. Same goes for cycling although it depends on distance. Cars are great time savers such that the idea that some how Europeans make up for higher priced gasoline by taking the bus and cycling is pretty dubious.

    One more thing regarding Senator Wyden’s routine smearing of big oil. Senator Wyden probably doesn’t want to solve high oil prices, because it would rob him of one his favorite soap box issues.

    • dean

      Bob….try getting around Paris or Amsterdam by car and see how fast and convenient it is.

      No one is going to “solve” high oil prices. World demand is now as high or higher than world production capacity. Get used to it.

      • Hiya Deanie Weenie!

        News Flash for you! We’re in Portland and Oregon NOT Paris or Amsterdam. Or did you forget that little FACT?

      • Paris is a sprawling city

        Paris is a giant sprawling city once you get away from the down town full of big box stores. Only the down town is accessible by bike or transit.

  • Ethan

    So, the million dollar question is: How do we go about fixing issues like this, rather than just talking about them a lot?

    • Jerry

      I already told everyone how to fix this – ride bikes! Problem solved.

      • dean

        Ethan…”fixing” it depends a lot on one’s diagnosis of the problem. If the problem is we just are not drilling far and wide enough for whatever oil is left…then just drill more. If the problem is world demand exceeding a limited world supply, then reducing demand and finding alternatives ways to power ourselves and our nation is the ticket. And if one accepts human induced global warming as an inconvenient fact (as I do) then those alternatives should be designed to accomplish 2 or 3 objectives:

        1) greater self sufficiency
        2) less fossil fuel use
        3) New enerfy sources that lessen carbon emissions

        As to “how,” there are some good proposals on the table by Democrats running for president, and even McCain seems to be somewhat on board.

        Or we can bitch and moan and deny, and point fingers and sink deeper into the problem.

    • Tim Lyman

      Ethan –

      We won’t fix them. Our leaders lack the will and spine.

      Perhaps Roger Daltry summed it up best when he said “My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”

      • dean

        Tim…why do “the politicians” have to solve all of our problems? What is wrong with ourselves making some changes?

    • Ethan

      Jerry – Not a viable option.

      Dean (1st) – Quote: “Or we can bitch and moan and deny, and point fingers and sink deeper into the problem.”
      Most likely to happen. Change doesn’t happen on its own. We need to go out and make it happen.

      Tim – What dean said. (post 13.2.1) Why are we leaving it to “someone else” rather than working to cause change ourselves?

      Dean (2nd) – Spot on. I was suggesting we (any one or all of us) pick an issue we feel needs attention and work to make the appropriate changes.

      I don’t really count as an activist, but I think it is possible for me to help make significant changes particularly in this are in the future. I will graduate with an electrical engineering degree in a year and a half and there are fair odds that I will help develop systems for electric or hydrogen powered cars. Who knows, I may never work in that area, its hard to foresee the future.

      My point being, why don’t any / all of us go out and change things.

      • dean

        Ethan…individual action is critical, but so are appropriate policies. For example, government support for R&D will increase the chances of success for you and young engineers like you.

        But again…it starts with how we define the problem. Are gas prices high because oil companies or Arabs are gouging us, or because consumption exceeds production? Is global warming the real deal or a sneaky plot by liberals to make conservatives drive hybrids and support light rail?

  • Tim Lyman

    Ethan –

    Bumper stickers and “activism” will contribute exactly as much to solving the problem as they havenin the past – nothing. Well meaning but foolish people have, in fact, exacerbated the problem.

    If public desire alone were enough to solve the problem we would all have unlimited free energy. Wishing for a thing does not make it so. “Free Tibet” bumperstickers have not freed Tibet

    If we want cheaper gas, we need to drill for oil like crazy. This would require changes in federal law.

    If we want to move away from petrolium dependency, we need to build an entirely new energy infrastructure – and it ain’t gonna be windmills and solar panels. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. We need (a) source(s) that are available 24/7. Building a new powerplant – even a solar one – is a regulatory and litigation nightmare. If we want to encourage their construction we need to change federal laws.

    PS – hydrogen is a dead end. Like corn ethanol, it requires more energy to produce than it contains. Electricity is the only long term answer.

    • Ethan

      Maybe activism isn’t the word I was looking for. I guess a phrase may describe it better: “Get off the couch (computer chair) and go change the world, (do something).” Slightly exaggerated.

      Dean – What I’m getting at is, why are we here just talking about how things are instead of actively going out and trying to fix them? Fixing them may start by trying to publicize legitimate arguments for one method / against another for solving a problem.

      • dean

        Ethan…the short answer is some of us are doing what we can while others (many who read this site) are throwing rocks and insults at us. Unfortunately mere acknowledgement of the nature and scope of the energy problem challenges some people’s constricted view of how the world works (i.e. free markets solve all problems, government is bad, liberals are conspiring with scientists and the media to scare people, etc…)

        And the wonder of the internet allows anyone with a good search engine to dredge up any sort of recycled nonsense to keep people confused and imobile.

        At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  • Anonymous

    Dean,
    You are a destructive perveyor of misionformation. Off base and a detriment to progress and sound policies.

    And you people will reach new heights in human suffering and monumantal waste with your Global Warming fraud.

    One of your pals had a letter to the editor in Friday’s O.
    Nic Callero letter ” Climate law legacy” says
    — “In my opinion is an important problem that requires immediate action. Pushing to enact legislation in 2008 would,,,,,,bring home funds for wave energy research and other Oregon priorities. Hopefully climate change can be one of the problems this Congress actually solves”.—-

    Just look at the kind BS this guy peddles.
    From a google search. https://www.targetglobalwarming.org/node/549/print
    Nic thinks Global Warming can be found in all of our backyards.
    He says,
    —“Have you noticed different migration patterns of wildlife and game? Has the fishing season been cut short? Have you noticed dwindling fish populations? Or just the hotter days? If so, you’ve experienced some of the effects of global warming.”—-

    What?
    The “experts” say the last 100 years has experienced a whopping 6/10th of one degree Celsius rise in temperature.

    This is just another deluded professional greeny telling tales.

    The list of supposed current effects of AGW grows daily from the deludeds. Our governor, Sec of State anmd a whole lotts democrats loonies in this are off the deep end pushing CO2 reducing regs. and mandates, and programs.
    All to address a backyard fraud.

    • dean

      Like I said….rocks and insults. Every major world scientific body that studies climate agrees on global warming theory. I don’t know who “my pal” Nic is or what he thinks. And I don’t care who you are or what you think. I do care about what the evidence is, as generated, reviewed, and accepted by the following:

      NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
      National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
      State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –
      Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
      The Royal Society of the UK (RS) –
      American Geophysical Union (AGU):
      American Meteorological Society (AMS):
      American Institute of Physics (AIP):
      National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):
      American Meteorological Society (AMS):
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
      Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
      Royal Society of Canada
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Academie 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
      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

      They are all deluded? Conspirists? Frauds? You dismiss their work?

      • cc

        Nice cut and paste.

        I checked just one -https://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2912.htm.

        Hmmmm.

      • Ethan

        From what I understand, at least one major instance compiling a list of “experts that back the global warming idea” was a fraud. Many of those placed on the list did not approve and often were in complete disagreement. So unless you have specific articles from each of the above mentioned organizations showing that they do in fact recognize that global warming is occurring, I myself wont consider them valid.

        I don’t really expect you to go to the effort of proving that each of those is in fact on board your boat. I am just saying that you claiming they agree doesn’t actually mean that they do. (Also not saying you are intentionally feeding misinformation, just check your sources in this case.)

        How the heck did we get onto global warming?

  • Anonymous

    Look Dean,

    Try and grasp what it going on here and move forward.

    There’s a huge list of many experts from many fields calling BS on that list you supply. If you can’t detect BS in the IPCC with all of the available critiquing then you are handicapped in some way.
    Unethical, naive or something? Poor analytical and perceiving skills? My guess is you are unethical. Choosing to advance this hoax because it provides the mother of all propaganda machines to further your greenie agenda.

    The POINT of noting the Nic letter was to demonstrate the ultra dishonest made up sh_t your loonie greenies tell people.

    Not a shred of what he says is true. There are no effects of Global Warming showing up as he pitches. He and you are ludicrous.

    You can post the source of the fraud over and over again and play make believe they are accurate, validated and honest. They are not. The Gore campaign spread by our Bill Bradbury is laughable.

    https://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

    Nine Lies
    About
    Global Warming

    https://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

    The reason we’re on global warming is because Dean’s regime is in the process of making countless things needlessly and severely more expensive. Causing great hardship to millions of humans around the globe and wasting countless resources while accomplishing nothing.

    This isn’t just debating some government policy. This is a mamouth battle and Dean is an enemy of the State.

    • dean

      “The state” in this case, being Oregon, agrees with global warming theory and Dean. As do all 3 remaining major party presidential candidates. As does Newt Gingrich for heavens sake. Get real.

      But what is the point? Believe whatever you want my anonymous name calling coward. Yes….I am “handicapped.” me and the body of worldwide climate scientists. Unethical…that’s it. I am part of the great and evil liberal plot to destroy your way of life. bwahahahaha!

      Ethan… I was not “citing experts.”I was citing a list of national and international organizations of experts that are on record as supporting the key tenets of global warming theory. You can look any of them up and see what they have to say for yourself. And that includes the NOAA site that cc provided in an attempt to refute one organization on my list. NOAA has determined global warming is proceeding FASTER than had been predicted.

      Lets just say there is a double reason to move towards conservation and alternative power sources: oil shortages AND problems with too much CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.

      The fraudulent list of experts you refer to was on the oposite side of the issue by the way.

  • Anonymous

    “Get real? Dean?

    Why do you ignore the ridiculous claims made by the Nics out there?

    Bill Bradbury spreads a load too. His presentation is a mockery of getting real. Among other laughable pieces, he actually quotes a NYT story on Portland reducing emissions to 1991 levels. That’s some of our local fraud the NYT picked up and now Bradbury and others are citing it as a model to follow. It’s as real as Nic’s tall tales and your boiler plate BS.

    Some OSU guy supposes Oregon’s ocean dead zones are caused by global warming and next thing we see is some clown writing a letter to the editor in the O citing him and the dead zones as proof of global warming. And BlueOregon was only too eager to pick up that piece of BS.

    But that’s what the likes of YOU do isn’t it Dean?
    Go from one made up thing after another.

  • Jerry

    How about we do what London is thinking of doing? Make older and bigger cars pay $50 per day to enter the city? Then, we could give each bike rider into the city $50.00 for not driving.
    Now this is an idea that might actually work.

  • Ethan

    Quoting “Lets just say there is a double reason to move towards conservation and alternative power sources: oil shortages AND problems with too much CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.”

    I don’t have a problem working to make things “greener” or generally not wasting. I do not like “save the trees” stuff. Trees for paper products are produced for our consumption, like a farmed crop. If someone says “hey, don’t waste paper towels” I can understand that but, we aren’t going to be living in a giant plains because we use paper towels. Again, I have no problem working to make cars more efficient but I don’t agree with trying to convince everyone that we are going to screw up the weather and that all hell will ensue if we don’t.

    Ok, we should get back to gas.

    So, if we need to run everything on electricity without use of gas as much as possible, our power grid may be stressed a bit. Anybody opposed to Nuclear power?

  • Anonymous

    There’s nothing wrong with using oil, coal and natural gas. Or driving in one’s car in comfort, convenience and privacy. Technology advances at break speed and the lives of mankind gets better around the globe while not risking it.

    Dean is simply a manipulator, lying to move along the fanatic enviro-eco-green agenda where nothing matters but more of them and their ways. Any and all costs are demanded without concern for effects or results.

    It’s important for folks to recognize the deceit and how it escalates at various levels. From the local Deans to the grand scale of the IPCC.
    This isn’t your black helicopter conspiracy or anything like the lind of lunacy these same people pitch such as their charge about 911being an inside job.

    No it’s a multilevel misuse of the mother of all environmental ends. Their means (wholesale deceit) is justified by the end of saving the world from destruction.

    Dean’s regular distribution of manipulative misinformation by blogging around, doing some writing in his local paper and delving into his local politics out Damascus away is at the more local end of this deceit. He’s forever echoing the land use and transportation propaganda at every opportunity.

    At Nic’s level, who I mentioned above, there is more organization and full time activism as the google search revealed. Nic takes it a bit further in adding his own fabrications well beyond Dean’s echo chamber. Example: Nic (above) —“Have you noticed different migration patterns of wildlife and game? Has the fishing season been cut short? Have you noticed dwindling fish populations? Or just the hotter days? If so, you’ve experienced some of the effects of global warming.”

    At agencies in the City of Portland, government bureaucrats do pretty much what Nic does only worse. They use millions of public dollars in their manipulations. Example: Portland, with help from Metro, put together a bogus report claiming a reduction in CO2 emissions was a result of their land use and transportation policies. Never mind they never even measured emissions their goal was to justify a continuation and expansion of themselves and the policies they advocate.

    Metro and TriMet spend millions more on a regular basis as the deceit picks up steam to the regional level.

    Our manipulating Governor and Secretary of State use their positions to further spread the misinformation. Example: SOS & Al Gore trained, Bill Bradbury travels the state giving Global Warming presentations chuck full of manipulative information including quoting a NYT story touting Portland’s emissions successes as if they were real.

    State agencies are diverting millions more towards greater deceit, public policies and advancing the agenda.

    The legislature follows suit with funding and regulations aimed at controlling and shaping more of the public’s lives. Funding $250 million for a new light rail bridge and expansion next to the unfunded and crumbling Sellwood Bridge is one of their latest contributions.

    We have the OSU guy who suggested the Oregon ocean dead zones are a result of human global warming and the army of manipulators ran with it.
    Never mind that was also a total fabrication.

    Then comes the national organizations and public agencies manipulating everything from routine weather to wildlife populations to inflate the Global Warming urgency.

    At the top of this unprecedented manipulating fraud is the IPCC “consensus” with all it’s distortions and ultimate theories predicting calamity and demanding what every lying Dean wants.

    Out of the enormity of this deceit will only come widespread human suffering and waste beyond belief. This is a grand battle and the stakes have never been greater. Not with the fate of the planet at risk as this unethical army of manipulators insist we believe. It’s the upward curve of modern man and our ability to improve the lives of the populous that is under attack by these Dean’s at all levels.

    They’ll need to be defeated, period.

    • dean

      Ethan…nuclear is already part of the picture. The US gets about 20% of our electricity from nuclear if memory serves. Should we build new nuclear plants? For me, its an option that needs to be on the table, but it isn’t my first choice because of the huge expense, the long time frame it takes to get a single plant in operation, the government (taxpayer) mega insurance that needs to be provided in case of a serious accident, and our technical inability (to date) to find a safe way to transport and store or recycle highly radioactive waste. (Turning it into plutonium by “breeding” increases the supply that terrorists could get a hold of).

      We appear to have better options. North Dakota alone reportedly has enough wind energy (and it blows year around) to power the entire nation. The challenge is transport and friction loss. I’m personally optimistic that we are smart enough (young engineers like yourself) to meet the technical challenges of generating enough electricity to meet all our needs, but maybe not all our wants, affordably and well into the future by using multiple sources that make the most sense locally. For Oregon, tides and waves and geothermal might be best, whereas in the great plains it could be wind and switchgrass.

      We are spending 12 million $$ a month right now trying to keep Iraqis from killing each other. If we could back ourselves out of there and put that same amount of money into alternative energy investment we can lick this problem in short order.

      Anonymous weird person (above,)…it must be hell living in a world that is lined up against you. But consider this. If the governor, the state legislature, nearly every local elected official, our transit agency, our highway agency, the world body of scientists (way beyond the IPCC,) our state universities, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Nic (whoever he is) Dean and a clear majority of people across the US and world all agree that we have a global warming problem that needs to be addressed, and that this will require action by governments, businesses, and individuals…..then can we all really be “fanatic enviro-greens?”

      Or has the broad center of the nation and world agreed, leaving you and a diminishing number of doubters out there flailing your arms and shouting to the heavens?

      I’m not saying we are necessarily right and you wrong, because at times even very large majorities get things wrong. But don’t you ever stop and wonder? And can we all really be “manipulators?” I mean….really.

      And are we really going to destroy civilization by driving plug in electric hybrid vehicles instead of gasoline powered ones, and getting our electric energy from solar cells, wind, and waves instead of coal fired plants?

      Who is out on the fringe here my anonymous debater?

  • Anonymous

    https://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

    In the early 1990s Aaron Wildavsky noted the implications of decarbonisation:

    Global warming is the mother of environmental scares. In the scope of its consequences for life on planet Earth and the immense size of its remedies, global warming dwarfs all the environmental and safety scares of our time put together. Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on
    rejection of economic growth in favour of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.

    Conclusion

    The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary scientific event in the post-War period. So many people, and institutions, have been caught up in the web of deceit, master-minded by environmental activists working through the
    NGOs and their manipulation of the IPCC processes, that the integrity of Western science is seriously at risk. The unravelling of this web will result in the loss of reputation for many individuals, but more importantly, in the restructuring of those scientific institutions in Australia and elsewhere which have tied their reputations to that of the IPCC. That issue is now moving onto the political agenda.

    • dean

      Yes…and the new government of Austrailia signed the Kyoto treaty as its first act, leaving the US as the last holdout.

      Man…we environmental conspiricists have sure done our job! It must have been that secret meeting in that cave back in 1988 when we drank that kool-aid and all swore to become vegans and…..

  • Anonymous

    Dean,
    Your stuff gets dumber every day.

    “a diminishing number of doubters ”

    Diminishing?
    Just make it up as you go Dean. That’s what you do best. That and ignore the stream of inaccuracies and BS from your camp.
    You can’t even read and comprehend posts here.
    Instead you re-post the list of Global Warming drones as though it’s somehow implausible for them to be loonies and liars because you list them. .

    Like an obnoxious juvenile you say “But consider this” before your list as if I had not.

    Your BS about the “world body of scientists” is laughable. There is no such world body aligned with your manipulations.

    Is Newt Gingrich and John McCain supposed to impress someone? Only the irrationally impressionable.

    “Nic (whoever he is)” ?You can’t read? That’s yet another example of the stunts you pull. I explained and linked exactly who Nic and you act baffled.

    Your effort to inflate anad fabricate global opion on AGW is more of your manipulation.

    I am saying you are absolutely wrong. In addition I say you are indeed an unethical manipulator.
    I don’t know what you mean by “can we ALL really be “manipulators?” Who’s ALL. Not every person who buys into the alarmists propaganda is but you and the others in my post above sure are.

    Here read it again and try and grasp the meaning of the words.

    Dean’s regular distribution of manipulative misinformation by blogging around, doing some writing in his local paper and delving into his local politics out Damascus away is at the more local end of this deceit. He’s forever echoing the land use and transportation propaganda at every opportunity.

    At Nic’s level, who I mentioned above, there is more organization and full time activism as the google search revealed. Nic takes it a bit further in adding his own fabrications well beyond Dean’s echo chamber. Example: Nic (above) —“Have you noticed different migration patterns of wildlife and game? Has the fishing season been cut short? Have you noticed dwindling fish populations? Or just the hotter days? If so, you’ve experienced some of the effects of global warming.”

    At agencies in the City of Portland, government bureaucrats do pretty much what Nic does only worse. They use millions of public dollars in their manipulations. Example: Portland, with help from Metro, put together a bogus report claiming a reduction in CO2 emissions was a result of their land use and transportation policies. Never mind they never even measured emissions their goal was to justify a continuation and expansion of themselves and the policies they advocate.

    Metro and TriMet spend millions more on a regular basis as the deceit picks up steam to the regional level.

    Our manipulating Governor and Secretary of State use their positions to further spread the misinformation. Example: SOS & Al Gore trained, Bill Bradbury travels the state giving Global Warming presentations chuck full of manipulative information including quoting a NYT story touting Portland’s emissions successes as if they were real.

    State agencies are diverting millions more towards greater deceit, public policies and advancing the agenda.

    The legislature follows suit with funding and regulations aimed at controlling and shaping more of the public’s lives. Funding $250 million for a new light rail bridge and expansion next to the unfunded and crumbling Sellwood Bridge is one of their latest contributions.

    We have the OSU guy who suggested the Oregon ocean dead zones are a result of human global warming and the army of manipulators ran with it.
    Never mind that was also a total fabrication.

    Then comes the national organizations and public agencies manipulating everything from routine weather to wildlife populations to inflate the Global Warming urgency.

    At the top of this unprecedented manipulating fraud is the IPCC “consensus” with all it’s distortions and ultimate theories predicting calamity and demanding what every lying Dean wants.

  • Ethan

    Seems we stirred the pot up a bit…

    I don’t think that everyone agreeing with global warming is necessarily intentionally manipulation others. I think some people want to believe it so they draw conclusions about certain evidence where something else fits better. I am sure there are some out there intentionally manipulating others for some reason or another, financial gain / government funding maybe? Recognition?

    And about the Iraq thing, its not like any of us want to have to be there spending lots of money trying to keep things in order. What can we do at this point? Relative stability is dependent on our presence. If we leave the area, mayhem will ensue. It would be sweet if we could just say “get your act together people” and then pull our guys out. Unfortunately it seems kinda hard to get along with some of the people over there.

    … This is going to turn into the thread of all major global issues, whats next? 9/11? …

  • Anonymous

    I also don’t think that everyone agreeing with global warming is necessarily intentionally manipulating others.
    That’s why I didn’t say that.

    I did however give precise example of manipulation by those who are manipulating science and the public.

    Nic, telling people different migration patterns of wildlife and game, shortened fishing season, dwindling fish populations and hotter days are all effects of global warming.

    The City of Portland using public money to cook up phony studies to claim emissions reductions from local policies is severe deceit and manipulation. Their report was piicked up and repeated across the country. Bill Bradbury uses it iin his manipulation and deceit.

    The OSU guy who tried to attribute the ocean dead zones off our coast to GW was certainly a manipulator as well. But his baseless and wrong theory was picked up by our newspapers and activists like Nic and Dean.

    The Governor, SoS, Al Gore and the IPCC have been engaged in the same things.

    Collectively the amount of observations falsly attributed to human global warming is without limits. Yet any time a skeptic mentions a contradictory observation like record snow fall it’s dismissed as a meaningless snap shot.
    So the manipulating rule is there’s no limits on what can be attributed to Global Warming while nothing contradictory is acceptable.

    Dean didn’t respond to any of these example of deceit. Instead he repreated the list of IPCC loyalists as if that’s the same thing as responding. The only reason so many people are accepting of the Global warming alarm is because of broad spectrum of decievers propagandizing every day. Most people who have bothered to look at the plethera of contradcitions readily available from a “Global Warming Fraud” google search is not buying the hoax any longer.
    It’s not even a close call. It’s obvious that science has been hijacked and the GW campaign is without merit or integrity.

    • dean

      I can’t speak for why people believe what they believe. I can only say that my own acceptance of global warming theory is based on the conclusions of the overwhelming number of climate scientists, expressed through the many organizations I cited. Their case makes the most sense to me. I wish it were otherwise….that the climate was not rapidly warming and that the cause was not us.

      Sure….if one relies on what one reads in the general media one will enocunter false or exagerated claims, extrapolations from anecdotal observations, and cherry picking. And that occurs on all sides if this and any other debate. Its the responsibility of the reader to beware, including what one reads on the internet. So how does any of us seperate fact from fiction? Or correct analysis from incorrect? All information presented is not equal. We have a time tested scientific peer review process and establishment that is designed to seperate scientific fact from fiction. There is no need to get hung up on “he said she said” opinionating on a complex technical issue. Who are the experts and what do they say?

      The jury has been in for several years.
      * The earth is warming, measured at about 1 degree C over the past 100 years
      * A major cause of this is accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere due to human fossil fuel burning, clearing of forests, and agricultural practices
      * If we keep doing what we are doing greenhouse gasses will continue to accumulate and the warming of the earth wil speed up
      * If this happens there will be many unpredictable, some likely very negative consequences for humans and other species
      * We know what we need to do and have most of the technology and know how at hand
      * We should not wait for perfect knowledge to begin to act in our own interests

      Until the experts report otherwise, as a practical person I support reasonable, prudent, affordable action now. Call me a fool, dumb, obnoxious, full of BS, a manipulator, a fabricator, or whatever you like, and continue to hide behind your anonymity. I frankly do not care. Reality is what it is.

      Ethan…on Iraq…I don’t have any good answers, and frankly I don’t think there are any. I believe we can sit on the place at great expense and continued loss of American lives and health for many years and that may help keep things from going completely to hell. Maybe…if we do that for a decade or 2 or 3 the many Iraqi factions will have worn themselves into some sort of long term agreement. Or we could start backing our way out now, and if they choose to fight it out rather than talk it through, it is on them. Their choice.

      Bleak options. My point was only that we may have larger issues to tackle (renewable energy R&D) and that in the long run we may be better off investing our limited resources on more productive and important initiatives.

  • Anonymous

    Dean,
    Many EXPERTS have reported otherwise. From around the globe in excrutiating detail. Your bias and unethical stance prevents you from giving it the practical consideration and weight is plainly deserves. That’s what fanatics do. That’s what makes them fanatics and causes them to adopt foolish, obnoxious, manipulator and fabricator ways.

    Contrary to your spin the misinformation is NOT occurring on all sides. That’ claim is just more of your bias.
    I gave you specific examples, at various levels, of false or exaggerated claims, extrapolations from anecdotal observations, and cherry picking. Cooked up studies and lies by government agencies, public officials and the very establishment that is designed to separate scientific fact from fiction included. So where can I find the same on other side? Where’s anything near the examples I gave coming from the other side?

    And with so much distortion coming from your side why is their credibility unshaken with you?

    You are right that it is the responsibility of the reader to beware. But you don’t. With all of the examples of misinformation from the GW alarmist’s side you still insist they are providing the best information. Just being a good green trooper?

    One of the ultimate measures of current BS is the widespread GW Al Gore-Bill Bradbury claims of effects today from the paltry less than 1 degree C temp increase over the past 100 years.

    That increase is of zero significance and not a contributor to essentially any of the wild claims these hoaxers dish out. Yet in their effort to alarm and and advance their ideas they find it useful to lie. From the scenes of polar bears appearing stranded on free ice to vanished glaciers it’s really too much for any intelligent person to not laugh at. The extremity at which the collection of manipulations has reached makes you among a biggest con this planet has ever withnessed.

  • Anonymous

    https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

    Climate facts to warm to
    Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008
    CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

    “Is the Earth stillwarming?”
    “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.
    “Is this a matter of any controversy?”

    Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century.
    But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary.”

    What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?”

    “Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that’s what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

    “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”

    “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

    These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”

    The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”

    A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

    With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

  • Anonymous

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/1001

    Dean’s on the hot seat

    Climate panel on the hot seat
    By H. Sterling Burnett
    March 14, 2008

    Excerpt:

    Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

    In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

    A good example of a principle clearly violated is “Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.” Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

    Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

    The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

    The IPCC’s policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

    H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

    • dean

      Okay my secretive nemesis…you make claims of false or exaggerated claims as one-sided, and the you lead off with a repeat of misinformation, cherry picking, and an outright flase hood made by the denier side.

      Is the Earth still warming?”
      “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.

      This is your “truth?” Lets take a look at it.

      According to global temperature data analyzed by NASA, through 2005:

      every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992;
      the ten hottest years on record occurred over the last 15;
      every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976;
      the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25;
      every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and
      every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917.
      The five-year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8 degrees C cooler than the five year mean in 2002.

      2005 was hotter than 1998, though just by a smidgen. And 2007 was just below the 2005 record.

      And NASA has predicted that new record temps will be reached during the next strong el nino, which could be as soon as next year.

      Why would anyone “take 1998” as a starting point? Could it be because it was the strongest el nino of the century and therefor had extreme temperatures? This is called scientific cherry picking, and it should tip you off as to the intent of the speaker.

      Could planet earth find ways to “compensate” for increased carbon, thus slowing or stopping global warming? Sure. There are a lot of unknowns about feedback effects. Maybe it will turn out we are saved by planet earth. Maybe not. Should we bet our future on unknown feedback mechanisms or begin reducing atmospheric carbon output now? I have my answer…you have yours. And most of the world appears to be going my way on this.

      “Commentary” by the way…is a conservative political magazine. It is not a peer review scientific journal. Find a better source.

      Dismiss me if you want. Dismiss NASA? For an article in Commentary? Green and Armstrong are economists, not climate scientists. They have nothing useful to say about the science of global warming, though they may have valid points about how to improve forecasting methods.

      Oh…and the Cener for Policy Analysis may be “non-partisn,” but it is self described as a “conservative” think tank. It is no science based, is not peer reveiwed, and is not objective in any way.

  • Anonymous

    “is not objective in any way”?

    Well there’s your expertice.

    You sure pick and choose what to consider.
    And then twist it all up.

    Why would anyone “take 1998” as a starting point?
    Context Dean. And making a point.

    And you don’t even know that 2005 was hotter than 1998.

    Your guy says this

    “Lost in many of the headlines, however, was this quote from the report’s lead researcher, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “We couldn’t say with 100 percent certainty that it’s the warmest year, but I’m reasonably confident that it was.”

    Hansen looked at different data in different ways compared to the NOAA team. The NASA study considered in particular data from the Arctic, which is warming faster than the rest of the planet. And for the latter part of 2005 both reports relied on preliminary data, so the analyses could change.

    In an email interview yesterday, Hansen reiterated his caveat.

    “I believe that 2005 is the warmest year, because the main source of difference is the Arctic, and I believe it is likely that our estimate there is in the right ballpark even though it is based on some extrapolations,” Hansen said. “However, I admit that it could be wrong, in which case 2005 might be slightly cooler than 1998.”

    And from my earlier post

    “IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.”

    There’s no question you are a manipulator and a political Should we bet our future on unknown feedback mechanisms or begin reducing atmospheric carbon output now?

    • dean

      Is it your contention that the Center for Policy Analysis is an objective, peer reviewed scientific body that has expertise on climate? And that they publish peer reviewed analysis on this subject?

      Because if it is….you have a lot of explaining to do, since even they don’t make any such claim.

      1998 as Context? Really? What point is it you expected to make? And how do you explain away the NASA findings, which use multiple contexts that all support the same conclusion (earth is warming up)? And If 2005 were as warm or warmer than 98 (and 07 just as warm,) doesn’t that contradict your earlier contention that warming “plateaued in 1998?” I’m getting dizzy watching you spin circles here, whoever you are.

      Is it your contention that Green and Armstrong presented ANYTHING that contradicted or called into question the scientific data or analysis the IPCC relied on to conclude that the earth has warmed, and that this warming is human caused, and that it will continue as we continue to load CO2 into the atmosphere? Anything at all?

      Or are you simply throwing more mud clods to see if something might stick somewhere?

      Hansen is not “my guy.” I’ve never met him. He is “our guy,” meaning he works on behalf of ALL of us as NASA’s leading scientist on climate.

      Hence…maybe he knows a bit more than we do about this?

  • Anonymous

    If 2005 is essentially the same as 1998 then temp has obvioulsy plateaued.

    Even you guy Hansen says 2005 could even be cooler than 1998.

    “However, I admit that it could be wrong, in which case 2005 might be slightly cooler than 1998.”

    Your consensus makers didn’t even follow forecasting principles. The IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

    Sloppy and manipulated science is what you peddle.

    On the hot seat
    By H. Sterling Burnett
    March 14, 2008

    Excerpt:

    Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

    In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

    A good example of a principle clearly violated is “Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.” Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

    Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

    The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

    The IPCC’s policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

    H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

    • dean

      Well…whoever you are you are darn good at repetition if nothing else.

      You can’t establish a “plateau” by using a single year baseline. You look at the longer trend lines.

      Hansen, as a scientist, understands the difference betwen certainty and uncertainty. Whether 2005 was equal to, slightly above, or slightly below 1998 is not all that important. Criticising him for his honesty and trying to make something out of nothing is reprehensible.

  • Anonymous

    I wasn’t criticizing him at all. I was quoting him and for all intent and purposes there is a damn plateau between 1998 and now.

    It could be slightly warmer, or slightly cooler. That said, it’s not a big indication of squat.

    More significant are all of more germane things you ignore. The lack of legitimacy in the IPCC use of statistics, forcasting and modeling.

    You can pretend there aren’t huge problems with the Global Warming case all you want but you are deluded.

    Furthermore it is you who is repetitive with your “peer review”, climate science and list of consensus makers rhetoric. And you have yet to give any examples of the skeptics coming up with BS like the monumental BS coming from the alarmists.

    You don’t even appear to actually read and comprehend the posts so I suspect you treat the broad body of skeptic’s science out there the same way.

  • Anonymous

    Forget Dean, he appears to be as much a fraud as the IPCC case.

    And don’t listen to me either.

    Just watch this

    https://blip.tv/file/791876

    • dean

      So I’m curious. Why do you put “peer review” in quotes? Is that a way of dismissing the scientific method?

      • dean

        I have read the skeptics arguments, and I have read the counter arguments. I have concluded the skeptics do not have much of a case. To you that makes me a liar…fool…manipulator or whatever. But I keep good company.

  • Anonymous

    I put “peer review” in quotes because you keep repeating that boiler plate with another falsehood that no peer reviewed science from skeptics exists. When in earlier exchanges with you it was provided. How many times do you think you need to mention the peer reviewed bit anyway?
    Your ridiculous stunts never end.
    Here you dream up that I was “dismissing the scientific method” of peer review. Was that to suggest that I don’t understand what peer reviewed means?

    Not to mention the fact that many skeptics have detailed how the peer review process has been compromised by your alarmist distorters. That too has been provided to you.
    But you go round in circles.

    I don’t buy that you have seen the skeptics science or have seen genuine counter arguments.
    The fact that you say you have concluded the skeptics do not have much of a case is proof. For their case is so extensive it’s laughable that you would make such a claim.
    But then you don’t acknowledge the blatant lies your greenie activists and local agencies tell. You ignore them with manipulating suggestions all sides are doing it. They aren’t. The City of Portland cooked up a bogus study on CO2 emissions. There is not a single example like that from the other side. Same goes for your greenie activists all over the place attributing all things imaginable to AGW.

    9 Lies about Global warming
    https://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

    • Ethan

      That PDF is quite interesting.

      Anybody (either side) know multiple locations to look up a table of global temperatures for the past several hundred years? Maybe particular detail in the last 100? It would be interesting to graph the last 100 years as claimed by several sources and compare them.

      • dean

        Ethan…the best source is probably NASA, which is charged with interpreting weather station data trends in the US, and has taken a lead role in interpreting station readings across the world. The leading skeptics, or at least those with some science credibility, have by and large accepted the temperature data, which is that the worldwide average temp increase has been .8-1 deg C over the past century. The 1998 high year was attributed to the strongest el nino in a century, and it has now been matched or exceeded twice (05 and 07).

        Contrarian arguments have shifted from:
        1) The world is not warming or measurements are unreliable to
        2) The world is warming but due to entirely natural causes to
        3) Warming is no big deal and will be good for us

        and are beginning to shift to: we can’t afford to change and anyway the worst impacts will be on warm climate (3rd world) countries, so who cares?

        If you stop and think about it, you might ask why? Why would the very same people (in many cases) first say it is not warming, then admit it is but we are not the cause, and then say ok we are the cause but who cares anyway?

        The conclusion that I draw is that this is a deliberate campaign meant to confuse the public and to delay policies that reduce fossil fuel use. Who would benefit from this? Well, middle eastern states and Venzuala, not our friends, have 70% of the worlds proven oil reserves, a lot of spare change, and a lot to lose from a shift away from oil. Same for global oil and energy companies, though several, including Chevron and BP, are now investing heavily in renewables and no longer deny the issue. Exxon is still a holdout. What their money buys is a linkage between contrarian scientists and free market or pro industry conservative “think tanks” who trot out and recyle contrary opinions in conferences, papers, media campaigns, and so forth paid for by the above.

        They publish “white papers,” which are studies of studies (not original research) intended to cast doubt and sow confusion. And in the internet age this works all too well unfortunately. A constant argument is that the research that proves gloabl warming is “politicaly inspired.” Hard to disprove when most climate research is funded by governments.

        Anonymous person, I do not read the direct science of either the climatologists who support global warming theory OR the other side. I read interpretations, summaries, reliable journalist reports, and so forth. I have watched several contrarian videos. Not being a climate scientist, and having a life to live, I’m not interested in turning over all the rocks here.

        Again, you make a claim about “your greenie activists…” that is unsubstantiated. They are not “mine.” I don’t own them or have anything to do with them, and I can’t be assigned responsibility for what others say or don’t say.

  • Anonymous

    Make it up as you go Dean, that’s what you greenies do.
    Your strawmanning games are manipulations.
    There is no contrarian confusing message from the skeptics.
    It’s quite clear.
    Here’e the short version. Try and graps it.

    Whatever warming there is, if any, is of no significance and has nothing to do with human CO2 production.

    Your conclusions are ridiculous.
    Your linkages are assinine and you have no genuine response to the mountain of solid science debunking your absurd AGW cult.

    Your rhetoric about think tanks, oil and white papers is nothing but further diverting, manipulation and distortion.

    No you don’t read or learn.

    And the video’s don’t require one to be a climate scientist or turning over all the rocks. That’s more of your excuses for not facing the cold hard realites that the IPCC case is not only easily and totally debunked but it’s easy for any layperson to grasp how badly they have manipulated AGW alarm.
    Your greenie pals are all over the place spewing out everything they can dream up as attributed to AGW.
    Perhaps you should look closer at the science. It aint that complicated and it’s better than the propaganda you read.

    Instead you wildly speculate about skeptics “white papers” being intended to cast doubt and sow confusion.

    That’s so much bunk. The studies, reports and videos that debunk the IPCC are specific and thorough in addressing the IPCC background and modeling errors.
    As far as the internet goes the GW alarmists are spreading far more bunk than the skeptics. Unfortunately your cult also has the Oregonian and countless other MSM outlets to distribute the fraud.

    You are a perfect example of the “politicaly inspired” factor. As you have a dmitted you don’t read the science.
    Not hard for you to stay loyal when you bury your head in the warm sand.

    I saw another distribution of BS in today’s Oregonian, by your greenie cult.

    https://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1207619782127710.xml&coll=7

    • dean

      Dimwitted…ridiculous….manipulation…distortion….cult….

      What is a good sign that someone has lost an argument? When all they have left is cowardly name calling while hiding behind a rock.

      A decent enough response to the doubters is at:
      https://www.csiro.au/news/ps398.html

      This is the web site of Austrailia’s leading scientific organization.

      And if a “greenie cult” is large enough to include the Oregonian, the largest newspaper in teh state, and the one that endorsed george Bush in 2000, doesn’t that suggest to you this is way beyond cult status?

      Cult: In religion and sociology, a cult is a term designating a cohesive group of people (generally, but not exclusively a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream.

      Outside the mainstream? Which better fits that…those who accept global warming as the real deal or those who don’t?

  • cc

    “Could planet earth find ways to “compensate” for increased carbon, thus slowing or stopping global warming? Sure. There are a lot of unknowns about feedback effects. Maybe it will turn out we are saved by planet earth. Maybe not. Should we bet our future on unknown feedback mechanisms or begin reducing atmospheric carbon output now?”

    dean,

    You’ve thoughtfully provided one of the most revealing paragraphs I’ve ever seen you write.

    You acknowledge that you don’t know, for sure, what the hell you’re talking about. You acknowledge that GW might just “go away” as Earth’s climate compensates for increased CO2. You surely acknowledge that your side’s prescriptions (or, more correctly, incantations and potions) for reducing GW will require major changes in lifestyles worldwide – causing unknown, but major, economic disruptions. You’re willing to make the “sacrifice”, but, like all good communitarians, you require that others make them, too.

    You’ll pardon me if I don’t accept your selfless desire to ordain me into the voodoo priesthood of GW fanatics.

    You’ve so far refused to make clear whether you think GW is anthropogenic (although I’ll bet you do). This is a key question, since if GW isn’t anthropogenic, then it follows that whatever we may do to try to ameliorate it will have little or no effect. Or does the altruistic notion of “doing something” obviate the need to fully understand the situation before we rush off waving our arms?

    So, again I ask: what will change your mind? Give me some idea so that we all have a benchmark. Which peer reviewed journals will suffice? You admit to not being a scientist, yet you blithely make judgements about scientists – their qualifications and credibility – based on what? You disclaim association with “greenies”, yet you parrot their talking points verbatim. So you’re NOT a “greenie”, or you ARE a “greenie”? You speak only for yourself (like Kari Chisholm) or you’re the standard bearer of the the GW cognoscenti?
    If you can’t be bothered with the science, at least you can comfort yourself with the pseudoscience of

    What’s it gonna be, dean?

    “Not being a climate scientist, and having a life to live, I’m not interested in turning over all the rocks here.”

    Face it. What you’re really “not interested” in doing is listening. You just “believe” in GW because the whole thing reinforces your world view. You have no scientific qualifications, yet you purport to be able to distinguish “correct” science from that of “deniers” (nice Holocaust association, there). What you espouse amounts to nothing more than a “faith-based” bias against those with whom you disagree.

    All the red herrings you trot out about some putative “shifts” in the views of “deniers” amount to nothing, You yourself allow for uncertainty in natural processes yet you indict others for invoking the same scientific open-mindedness. Your firm belief in relativistic judgement is self-serving in the extreme.

    “I have my answer…you have yours. And most of the world appears to be going my way on this.”

    You wrap yourself in the comforting anonymity of “…most of the world…” but renounce it when specifically challenged. I’d say you employ circular logic if there was any logic involved.

    Open-mindedness is the key here, and you don’t have it. You’ve latched onto GW as if it were a religion and your defense of it is typical of religious zeal.

    I’m disappointed in you, dean.

    Repent!

    • dean

      Answers from top down;

      1) I did not acknowledge that reducing global warming (by reducing CO2) will require “major changes in lifestyles worldwide.” We can still have abundant electricity, private cars, warm homes, employment, etc….

      When we turn on the lights, do we care if the electricity comes via solar cells, wind turbines, waves, or coal fired plants? If we drive a car, do we care if it is running off of batteries or gasoline?

      I think/hope/believe we can make a transition to a lower CO2 world at reasonable cost if we use our brains and make prudent investments. Yes the “sacrifice” is shared, and amounts to paying somewhat more for energy now, creating investments in alternatives. Yes…its all in together since we all rely on the same atmosphere and same climate.

      You need not join any preisthood. I have not done so myself.

      2) I believe most of the warming we are experiencing is anthropogenic, and agree that if it is not then action to reduce CO2 may not be justified or effective. (Though reducing oil use makes sense for other pragmatic reasons havng nothing to do with altruism).

      3) What would change my mind? If and when the scientific establishment uncovers new data or analysis that causes them to reach different conclusions, vetted through their peer review journals. I don’t read their peer review journals, so which ones is not important to me. What is important is for those engaged directly in the research and analysis to change their conclusions. If and when that happens we will both probably hear about it through mass media channels first.

      4) Am I a “greenie?” I do not self identify as such, but I’m not sure how you define that term. I consider myself a “conservationist”, which to me means being prudent in our use of the earth’s resources and modest in our consumption. In my professional work I have designed rock quarries within national scenic areas, timber sales on national forests, and roads through wetlands. I am not a member of any environmental organization (though I serve on a board of a non-partisan one,) but I have done work for and with some. I’ve also done work for timber companies and land developers.

      I write and speak only for myself.

      5) I would rather global warming were not happening. Does it “reinforce my world view?” Not really. When I first read about it I thought it was one more “end of the world” environmental hysteria scares, and I blew it off. More important things to worry about. I have come around slowly, after reading a lot about it, reviewing the evidence as distilled for us through summary documents, books and journals that help make technical work undestandable.

      6) I have some science and technical qualifications, but nothing to do with climate science.

      7) The shifts of the deniers is documented in their own words and statements. Sure…we should all be open to new information. But there also comes a point to choose a point of view and act. I am beyond that point on this issue.

      8) At times I am in the majority, and at times I’m not. On this issue, it appears I am. That doesn’t make me or the majority right. But it makes us larger than a cult

      9) I’m not a religous person, and this has nothing to do with religion as far as I can tell. I don’t have “faith’ in global warming, and it would be a ridiculous thing to have faith in. I have faith that the climate science establishment has done their due dillegence and is giving us the best information they have. I hope the skeptics turn out to be right and the warmth that has been measured is a mere blip on the screen, that CO2 has nothing to do with it, and that we can focus on other issues.

      10) I’m sorry to have disappointed you.

  • cc

    1) More to the point, dean: DO you acknowledge that major changes will be necessary and that they WILL be disruptive to many people?

    2) Reasonable enough.

    3) Pretty wiggly answer (surprise, surprise!). You toss that peer-reviewed term around frequently enough that your distancing yourself now seems disingenuous. I’ll pass on letting Time magazine be the harbinger of the death of GW, if you don’t mind.

    I’ll ask again: what’s the “tipping point”? You seem to have no trouble dismissing scientific data when it appears to contradict AGW, what’s the problem with taking a stand based on your approved panoply of experts?

    4) Whoopee! To paraphrase you: What is a “non-partisan environmental organization”? I’m not being snarky…I’ve just never heard that phrase before. Non-partisan in the GW area? I sincerely doubt it.

    5) “I would rather global warming were not happening. Does it “reinforce my world view?” Not really.” Oh, really? Then what does “…Though reducing oil use makes sense for other pragmatic reasons havng nothing to do with altruism…” mean?

    6) Look, dean, either you wear a pointy hat (that’s a metaphor for “you are a scientist – or are well-versed enough to draw valid scientific conclusions from data”) or you rely on others who do. If you aren’t qualified, then your conclusions are simply beliefs. You choose others whose conclusions suit you and must be content to nibble at the edges of science. It’s one or the other.

    7) Your use of the “denier” moniker and your reliance on their alleged “shifts” has no intellectual integrity. It’s simply name-calling and mis-direction. Your mind’s made up – that’s beyond obvious – I assert that it’s locked up.

    8a) I agree

    8b) You’ll have to look elsewhere for someone who called the collective “us” a cult – it wasn’t me. Parsing works both ways.

    9) As always, you employ the obtuse when responding to metaphor. Have it your way. When you claim faith in “the climate science establishment” yet refuse entry in that sacred circle to anyone who disagrees with the positions of your “approved” groups and individuals, faith is the right word; religious or not. I doubt that you ever discounted GW and similarly doubt that you “..hope the skeptics turn out to be right…”. Oil on the water – why now?

    10) Irony, like metaphor, is lost on you.

    Oh, well.

    • dean

      1) No. I don’t see a shift from a gasoline powered large car/SUV to a plug-in electric hybrid as “major.” I don’t see installing solar panels on one’s roof as “major.” Its a directional, gradual shift, not a radical, abrupt change. Germany, Denmark, France…they all use half the CO2 per capita we use and live quite well. And in France they also eat and drink a lot better.

      3) You just don’t like the answer or accept it. The reason I “toss” peer review around is that it is the only reliable test for scientific data, analysis, and findings. Anyone can write a blog post or spout off on the radio or TV.

      I have no specific advance “tipping point.” If the climatologists at Goddard (NASA,) the American Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the IPCC and so forth determine that global warming was all a big mistake…sorry about all the fuss…that is probably good enough for me. A Youtube video or conservative “think tank” conference doesn’t cut it.

      4) In this case, one that endorses Democratic, Republican, Independent, or third party candidates for office who make their case with respect to conservation policies. Since global warming theory is accepted by individuals who identify as all of the above…it is distincly a non-partisan issue. Unless you think Gingrich and McCain (to name only 2) are not Republicans.

      5) Reducing oil use makes sense irrespective of global warming because the supply is finite, it is mostly owned by governments we have problems with, its price is rapidly escalating, and we are spending $12 billion a month (plus the lives and health of our soldiers,) with no end in sight to try and create a friendly government over the top of a big pool of it.

      6) I am well versed enough to draw conclusions from data within my field of expertise…which is not global climate. I am content to “nibble at the edges” on climate science and let those with greater expertise in that field pour over the data and come to conclusions that I can access through secondary and tertiary sources.

      7) The shifts are not “alleged.” Read the current issue of the Weekly Standard, a publication I imagine you respect as a source.

      8) I don’t know how that smiley face got there.

      9) I don’t guard the entry points to the climate science world. Anyone can do their own research, analyze data, draw conclusions, and submit their findings for peer review. The few reputable scientists who disagree with consensus conclusions know the drill. Einstein overturned the field of physics and no one knew who the hell he was. To the extent a GW critic can’t get their work accepted by their peers, and they instead go to the media or the internet or “think tanks” as an end run….well I’m not buying it. Apparently you have, so they have not wasted their time.

      You can doubt me or what I say all you want. I don’t really care. But my first experience, or inkling of global warming was reading reviews and critiques of a book called The End of Nature by Bill McKibben, a science/environmental journalist published in the early 1990s. His conclusions were roundly criticized as “alarmest” within the ecological restoration/natural resource circles I travel in. I bought the criticism, never read his book, and up until a few years ago did not pay much attention to the issue. To the point where a book I edited on ecological restoration completely skipped global warming. I tend to live lightly anyway, we already have a passive solar farmhouse full of CF light bulbs, we grow organic produce, and I took a “why me worry” attitude.

      Ecologists have been generally slow to pick up on the implications of GW, but now are mostly on board. They see first hand the stresses that are building up out there in the bush and in our steams and rivers.

      Why now? The evidence has built up, been well presented, and waiting longer presents lousy prospects and passes the bill on to my kid, his kids, and yours if you have any.

      10) I thought I was being ironic in my previous answer to you.

      Oh well.

  • Pingback: tickled()

  • Pingback: karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas dan terikat()

  • Pingback: pengertian penduduk()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: contoh limbah rumah tangga()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: doa ulang tahun untuk diri sendiri()

  • Pingback: pay4you()

  • Pingback: book cheap flights()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: contoh pembangunan berkelanjutan()

  • Pingback: tata cara sholat berjamaah()

  • Pingback: pengertian pelajar()

  • Pingback: signifikan adalah()

  • Pingback: karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian eksistensi()

  • Pingback: pengertian dokumentasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian demonstrasi()

  • Pingback: contoh judul proposal()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas dan terikat()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan warga negara()

  • Pingback: nike roshe ld 1000 sp()

  • Pingback: nike mercurial studs()

  • Pingback: nike roshe womens uk()

  • Pingback: jag()

  • Pingback: flyknit roshe()

  • Pingback: test()

  • Pingback: clash of clans()

  • Pingback: iherb biosil()

  • Pingback: iherb ni()

  • Pingback: new chapter turmeric force iherb()

  • Pingback: 1/2-Inch Drive Click Torque Wrench()

  • Pingback: 1/2-Inch Drive Click Torque Wrench()

  • Pingback: ecm car()

  • Pingback: read this()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: game of thrones tv show()

  • Pingback: learn more()

  • Pingback: buy essay uk()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: order essay paper online()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: webpage()

  • Pingback: kyrie shoes()

  • Pingback: best cheap hair extensions()

  • Pingback: tape hair extensions()

  • Pingback: express hair extensions()

  • Pingback: More Help()

  • Pingback: cute down alternative comforters()

  • Pingback: learn more()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: cute light blue comforters()

  • Pingback: learn more()

  • Pingback: cute coral comforters()

  • Pingback: discover more()

  • Pingback: Belgium euro 2016 maillot()

  • Pingback: cute comforters()

  • Pingback: cute bright comforters()

  • Pingback: cute bed comforters sets()

  • Pingback: cute comforters online()

  • Pingback: cute comforters and quilts()

  • Pingback: cute baby comforters()

  • Pingback: cute daybed comforters()

  • Pingback: clash royale triche()

  • Pingback: cccam server()

  • Pingback: cialis generic()

  • Pingback: this post()

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)