The Inconvenient Truth of Global Climate Change

It is no secret that people on the Political Left are trying to capitalize on the global scare campaign called “Global Warming.” Of course now, with the recent winters in North America that were colder than previous the new buzz phrase is “Global Climate Change.”

Environmental scare campaigns like “Global Climate Change” are designed to accomplish two goals. One, advance further government intrusion into the lives of law-abiding citizens. Two, to create fundraising opportunities for the very organizations that are perpetrating the scare campaign.

And so the latest scare — Global Climate Change — is aimed at reducing the “carbon footprint” that humans have left on the Earth. No doubt when they first dreamt up this scare campaign, extremist environmentalists saw an opportunity to get cars off the road, stop the use of gas powered lawnmowers, and maybe even force high density living on all of us. Surely these extremists see the Global Climate Change Scare as their path to Nirvana.

Ah, but something happened on the way to their Utopia. It turns out the environmental movement’s rhetoric doesn’t match the science of “carbon footprints” and “global climate change.” And in Oregon, the key to combating Global Climate Change may lie in harvesting the holy grail of the environmental movement — old growth forests.

In the most recent issue of Wired magazine (not exactly a “right-leaning” publication), the magazine takes on some of the claims of the environmental movement in regards to global climate change. Below is the conclusion the folks at Wired reached with respect to old growth forests and global climate change:

Ronald Reagan’s infamous claim that “trees cause more pollution that automobiles” contained a grain of truth. In warm weather, trees release volatile chemicals that act as a catalyst for smog. But the Gipper didn’t mention another point that’s even more likely to make nature lovers blanch. When it comes to fighting climate change, it more effective to treat forests like crops than majestic monuments to nature.

Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released.

Last year, the Canadian government commissioned a student to determine the quantity of carbon sequestered by the country’s woodlands, which account for a tenth of global forests. It hoped to use the CO2-gathering power of 583 million acres of woods to offset its Kyoto Protocol-mandated responsibility to cut greenhouse gas emissions. No such luck. The report found that during many years, Canadian forests actually give up more carbon from decomposing wood than they lock down in new growth.

A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones. Lots of them. A few simple steps: clear the oldest trees and then take out dead trunks and branches to prevent fires; landfill the scrap. Plant seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses. It won’t make a glossy photo for the Sierra Club annual report, but it will take huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.

How about that! Cutting down trees and planting new ones is actually good for the environment! Governor Kulongoski are you listening? If Oregon is really serious about being a leader in the reduction of carbon emissions, then Oregon should allow our timber industry to thin forests, salvage burnt timber, and harvest trees.

It would be a win-win for Oregonians: a cleaner environment and a boost to jobs and the economy. Who would possibly oppose something like that?

Oh yeah. The environmentalists.

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

Posted by at 05:55 | Posted in Measure 37 | 71 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    I sure hope we are getting to the point where the AGW silliness will either be combated, by attacking it head on, as the Czech president recently did, or simply laughing at it, as I currently do.

    Generally I tend to hang out with commie types. My wife is a professional wild life commie, so it kind of goes with the territory. Any time AGW or carbon or any of that stuff comes up, I try to avoid it. On those occasions where I am pressed I will simply ask the one pressing me

    “so you think I am foolish for saying this global alarm bell Al Gore is making a buck on is just plain silly?”

    I will then be recited the liturgy “the vast majority of scientists agree on AGW, there are no peer reviewed studies that contradict it, the models line up perfectly”

    Rather than get into a discussion of the facts of this liturgy, all of the above are untrue, I simply ask the person a question.

    “so if you are trying to convince me of your point, in one sense, you are trying to help me not look foolish?”

    “if this is true, then its reasonable to assume, that you yourself would listen to argument intended to help make you not look foolish”

    “therefore, consider the millennium bug, when all the computers were shut down, do you remember being glued to your TV? Do you remember waiting as the New Year dawned in Australia and nothing happened? Do you remember the lead up, how many billions had been spent by corporations to avoid this virtual certainty? Everyone agreed on it, people built bomb shelters, stockpiled food etc.”

    “I would be a fool not to be wary of the motivations of AGW fanatics. We have seen this before, we will see it again, and we are seeing it now, with the shift from “Global Warming, to “Climate Change” that bothers me, it should bother you”

    Yet again – Rupert’s two pillars of truth:
    Throughout history, there has always been someone making a buck predicting the end of the world.
    Virtually everything tastes better wrapped in bacon.

  • Bob Clark

    I’m not really sure why there is an Oregon state government anymore, because it is mostly walking lock step with other collectivest states like California and nations of the European Union, as for example on issues such as Global Warming. For instance, I recently talked to one staff person at the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (PUC) who was elated about the prospect of taxes on carbon emissions. According to this person such taxes would help lessen the poor economic returns posited by most of the state’s mandated renewable power projects. This, in effect, tells me the PUC has lost its mission of trying to combat high electricity prices and now is about sticking it to utility customers for some perceived, unproven, and off-in-the-distant future environmental and research benefit.

    Talk Show host Michael Savage comes to mind here.
    He is kind of a wacko, but I find myself agreeing with one thing he is saying; And that is, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.” I say this because I have many friends who support the Al Gore cause but who at the same time drive their luxury sport cars everywhere they go and live in large houses with only their spouse and themselves. It’s like one side of their brain is the voter, and it votes to clobber the other side of its being, the happy life part.

    P.S
    A big weapon being used to create this mental disorder is that old psychological tool called “Guilt.” What we need is a guilt antidote.

    • dean

      Bob…evey individual lives with contradictions, and every political philosophy also does. A liberal who does not live an environmentally perfect life is not suffering from a mental disorder. He/she is simply human. Just as a conservative who has kids he/she loves yet seems to care nothing for the life support system those kids and their kids will depend on is also not suffering from a mental disorder. He/she may simply not want to accept the consequences of what fossil fuel burning, which we are all so dependent on, may have.

      Rupert, it is convenient that you have concluded that “all of the facts” of global warming are “simply untrue.” How could the rest of us, including those who actually go out and collect and analyze those facts, not see this. Because we are all “fanatics,” who base or conclusions only on emotion. Brilliant. Problem solved.

      • Steve Plunk

        Dean, I hate to seem like I’m picking on you but Rupert didn’t make such statements as you have attributed to him.

        He is saying the standard arguments put forth by AGW believers are not completely true.

        There is no consensus. The “hockey stick” graph was manipulated and has since been discredited. There are peer reviewed studies that support other theories. The computer models are not being validated by real world results.

        So the skeptics are slowly being proven wise for their skepticism. The chicken littles of the church of AGW (which isn’t even used used anymore since warming is not happening but instead it’s “climate change”) are slowing being proven to lack or refuse to use critical thinking skills.

        Of course many of us saw this as something the left would embrace as an excuse to stop capitalism and free market economics. What they could not accomplish through the ballot box they tried to accomplish through junk science and scare tactics.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Rupert, it is convenient that you have concluded that “all of the facts” of global warming are “simply untrue.”

        Learn to read.

        Would you just learn to read?

        LEARN…………TO………READ

        Please, for the love of God and all that is holy would you just, please take a class. Get someone in your house to help you. Something….. just please, learn how to read on even an elementary level.

        Have the self dignity to stop engaging in literary masturbation, arguing things someone never, said because you are simply incompetent at reading the most basic of sentences.

        • dean

          Rupert wrote:
          “Rather than get into a discussion of the facts of this liturgy, *all of the above are untrue*”…

          By stating that “all of the above” (liturgy) are untrue, right after stating:” the vast majority of scientists agree on AGW, there are no peer reviewed studies that contradict it, the models line up perfectly.” How else could one interpret him? I suppose we can error by filling in blanks like: The vast majority of CLIMATE scientists, and that there are precious FEW peer reviewed studies that contradict GW, and that the models SUPPORT the theory (no one I know claims they “line up perfectly.”)

          No…I don’t feel picked on. And I stand by my interpretation of what Rupert wrote. But…if he meant your interpretation, he was equally wrong. There is a consensus. The hockey stick has survived the critique (too complicated to re-hash here). The computer models have held up.

          I’m “on the left,” and I’m not interested in using global warming “as an excuse to stop capitalism and free market economics.” Quite the opposite. I would like to use capitalism and free market economics to stop global warming by putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and payng for carbon storage.

          “Junk science.” Bob…with all due respect, its the effort to obfuscate the truth that is crumbling.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            No Dean, sorry, I listed three things followed by a line below that said all of the above are untrue.

            You, because you can not read, thought I had said “all the facts” about AGW were untrue.

            Its ridiculous, learn to read.

            >No…I don’t feel picked on. And I stand by my interpretation of what Rupert wrote.

            Fine, then you simply can never admit you are wrong.. You substituted “all the facts” for my statement that three things were untrue.

            The fact that you stand by this, even when it is corrected for you not only by myself, but others as well, is ludicrous.

            Three things is not the same as all things.

            “Three” different from “all”.

            >But…if he meant your interpretation, he was equally wrong. There is a consensus.

            Of course there isn’t. News of major scientists having huge disagreements with AGW are now almost daily. AGW has even undergone a name change, it is now “Climate Change”, there isn’t even consensus on which direction the climate is going in.

            >The hockey stick has survived the critique (too complicated to re-hash here).

            I don’t think the ludicrous hockey stick was even included in my three things so I have no idea why you cite it as refutation of my statement. Must be more bad reading. Anyhoo, the hockey stick was debunked so long ago I’m not sure even Al Gore brings it up anymore.

            >The computer models have held up.

            What nonsense. There was a recent widely publicized peer reviewed study with robotic measurements of the oceans temperatures. The story was quite publicized because the results had not lined up at all with what the scientists had been expecting from the models.

            The AGW to Climate Change name switch idea doesn’t exactly speak to faith in the computer models even from the true believers. Ya don’t try and cover all your bases if your computer models are lining up.

            This message brought to you by:

            The John and Katherine P. Arthur foundation.

            The William G Gillmore Foundation.

            The Number “Three”

            The Word “All”

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Quite the opposite. I would like to use capitalism and free market economics to stop global warming by putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and payng for carbon storage.

            I would fully endorse this idea actually. There is, however, one problem with it. There is debate on whether or not AGW is proven. Therefore the solution is this:

            One – Establish these greenhouse gas prices and carbon storage fees however you want.

            Two – Charge those prices, and have the computer models which you seem to have faith in lining up predict the temperature if the reductions you want are met. If they are met only partially, have the predictions pro rated accordingly. Any computer model capable of forecasting with the precision required, should be able to do the math.

            Three – If the targets are met, and the climate is stabilized at this perfect temperature you seem to want, great, we now have a system of doing so.

            Four – If the targets are not met, and the climate is not stabilized as forecast, financial harm has been caused by the AGW membership. Restitution will be made from matching funds posted in the form of a bond, by members of the group. Greenhouse fees could only be collected in an aggrigate amount not to exceed that posted by AGW members

            I would think AGW supporters would jump at this chance. They would get what they want, and all they would have to do is post a bond in the amount they are asking every business to actually pay, the greenhouse gas price. If AGW is in fact reality, fine, they lose nothing and business is charged accordingly. If AGW is wrong, then its adherents should be held accountable for the financial loss they have caused everyone.

          • dean

            Rupert…the hockey stick comment was in response to Bob. It has been discredited by bloggers, not by science. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

            I can admit when I am wrong. As proof, I am divorced. You on the other hand, are simply toying with words. You made an unsubstantiated claim and then tried to disown it.

            There is no “AGW membership” that I am aware of. I suppose you are insinuating something there, but won’t guess what. However, the “restitution for being wrong” question is a good one. Watch the news for an upcoming lawsuit on global warming. A village in Alaska is about to sue, or may have already filed suit against a number of energy companies (Exxon, Chevron, etc) who bankrolled the doubting Thomases. This village is eroding away due to prolonged periods of no sea ice attributed to global warming, or climate change if you prefer. Either way, the ice is melting, and the liquid seas are lapping at the shore and washing it away. The cost of moving the village will be in the many millions. And then there could be serious punitive damages. The charge is that these companies engaged in a patern of deception designed to forstall government regulation against fossil fuel use. Think big tobacco. Should be interesing to follow.

            But I’m sure you will offer to pitch in and help the oil companies pay up for damages right?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >I can admit when I am wrong. As proof, I am divorced. You on the other hand, are simply toying with words. You made an unsubstantiated claim and then tried to disown it.

            I tried to disown something? Where did I try to disown anything? Can you please point this out?

            You are right I did not substantiate my points in the initial post, as it was not germane to the point I was making in that post. That would be clear to any reader.

            I did substantiate my comments further in the follow up posts, as it was then appropriate, since I was called on them. I notice you didn’t refute them even though you were the one who questioned them. So much for unsubstantiated claims.

            Now you are claiming I disowned something when, unless I am missing totally what you are claiming I disowned, I did exactly the opposite.

            This is the wildest form of illogic I think I have ever seen. Making up words someone never said, claiming someone disowned things when they never did and having a complete inability to admit when one is wrong when it is absurdly clear.

            I can admit when I was wrong, you even caught me recently with the Senate Majority leaders name. I admitted to it forthright. Your flailing about here is absolutely graceless, but it is quite interesting I do have to say.

  • Dave R

    Rupert, did it ever occur to you that maybe many Y2K problems were avoided precisely *because* corporations spent billions of dollars fixing it?

    • Anonymous

      HA-HA-HA-HA

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Of course not, because were that true, then we still would have had massive computer failure on the private level. We did not. We would have especially expected to see this in computers which were not connected to the internet and through which no secret millennium bug fix might have been administered. Again, we did not.

      • David

        > Of course not, because were that true, then we still would have had massive computer
        > failure on the private level. We did not.

        No. These computers — as you say, not even connected to the Internet — controlled nothing. Therefore their failure mattered not at all, and were unlikely to make the newspapers.

        In any case, I remember everyone and their uncle downloading patches pre-Jan-00 to avoid Y2K problems. I mean, e
        everyone.

        Seems it worked.

        • Larry

          As somebody who worked for (still does) a top 3 computer server manufacturer, I had responsibility for an older large server product line and it’s Y2K readiness. I insured that patches were developed, tested and sent out to existing customers (Banks, Manufacturers, Universities, etc). Many institutions did install the Y2K patches, but others did not, even though they were mission critical servers. Bottom line: The servers without the Y2K patches performed as well as the servers with the patches installed. Not a hoax, but certainly a “sky is falling” hysteria that was way over blown. Not unlike AGW.

          • John in Oregon

            I find this particular thread in the discussion fascinating. Particularly as all three sides of the discussion are true.

            First Rupert commented > *[T]herefore, consider the millennium bug, when all the computers were shut down, do you remember being glued to your TV? Do you remember waiting as the New Year dawned in Australia and nothing happened? Do you remember the lead up, how many billions had been spent by corporations to avoid this virtual certainty? Everyone agreed on it, people built bomb shelters, stockpiled food etc.”*

            Then Dave suggested > *[T]hat maybe many Y2K problems were avoided precisely because corporations spent billions of dollars fixing it?*

            Finally Larry provided further illumination > *Many institutions did install the Y2K patches, but others did not, even though they were mission critical servers. Bottom line: The servers without the Y2K patches performed as well as the servers with the patches installed. Not a hoax, but certainly a “sky is falling” hysteria that was way over blown. Not unlike AGW.*

            The Y2K problem was a result of the early days of computers. The year was truncated to two digits (IE, 61, 62 for 1961 and 1962). This was done because both memory and storage were costly. The problem came when at the end of December. 1999 when un-patched computers would think the coming new year was 1900.

            Dave is absolutely correct the computer industry and computer users put a great deal of effort to correct the problem.

            Larry is spot on some computer users did not upgrade and there were few catastrophic failures and of the failures fewer still were unrecoverable.

            Finally, Rupert is absolutely correct in his observation that the public hysteria was wholly unwarranted. I remember the City of Portland activating its Emergency Operations Center to be ready to deal with the coming city wide devastation.

            Rupert’s point and the point I would make as well is that the Media, Politicians, the Y2K alarmist crowd whipped public opinion into a frenzy of panic.. No mater how many in the industry called for calm, they were labeled as Y2K deniers.

            This shows the absolute absurdity of the use of consensus, especially in a political context, to validate any argument.

            (Rupert, good to know there is at least one other person still around that knows about CNC industrial tooling.)

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Really?

          My business uses probably about ten computers. Most of them aren’t connected to the internet, they are connected to machinery. I am surprised to learn they control nothing.

          I have one right now that is connected to, and currently running, a $50,000 lathe. I would say that the failure of that computer would matter quite a bit.

          I would also say that, given the amount of computer controlled machinery nation wide, the failure of those computers would also matter quite a bit.

          But, since they generally aren’t connected to the internet, their failure does not matter.

          Interesting theory.

  • Steve Buckstein

    Thanks Ross. Coincidentally, Cascade’s John Charles will testify live this morning at 10:30am before the House Interim Committee on Revenue about what’s wrong with carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes. The hearing is streaming live now from Hearing Room F in the Capitol at:
    https://real3.state.or.us:8080/ramgen/broadcast/hrf.rm

    • dean

      Steve…just out of curiosity, Aren’t carbon taxes the preferred free market approach to this issue (assuming it is an issue)? A tax on a pollutant discourages its discharge and makes alternative dvelopment more economical by leveling the playing field, whereas the cap and trade puts more power in the hands of government. So if a carbon tax were paired with other tax reductions, wouldn’t that be something you could support? (Again…assuming carbon is a problem).

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, I’m not an expert on this issue, but believe you’re correct that cap and trade does put more power in the hands of government. If carbon itself were really a pollutant that was violating the property rights of others, taxing it may be an approach to consider. For a more knowledgeable view on this, John Charles’ testimony is coming up in a few minutes at the link above. For those who can’t watch it live, I’m sure we’ll post it online soon.

        • Richard K

          > If carbon itself were really a pollutant that was
          > violating the property rights of others, taxing
          > it may be an approach to consider.

          What does *that* mean? If you have no property, you therefore can’t, by definition, be hurt by climate change.

          What about *health* rights?

          • Steve Buckstein

            Richard, in my view property rights include your right to be free from pollutants generated by others that harm your health. So yes, if a pollutant harms your health then there should be a recourse. Of course, the devil is in the details, but I did not mean to imply that only those with property outside their own bodies should be protected.

      • Steve Buckstein

        John Charles full testimony today is now posted here at:

        https://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php?/archives/1467-Invited-Testimony-on-Carbon-Taxes-and-Limiting-Greenhouse-Gases.html

        Unfortunately, John’s invited 15 minutes of testimony got cut down to just 5 minutes by the committee chair. So, pro cap and trade/carbon tax supporters got about 85 minutes, and the one critic who was suggesting alternatives got just 5 minutes.

  • Ross Day

    Well now everyone just hold on a moment. I think we are missing the most important point raised in Rupert’s post.

    Everything DOES taste better when it is wrapped in bacon. Except maybe a donut…..and of course bacon.

    At my house, our favorite vegetable is….bacon.

    I think Ruperts Bacon point only adds to the credibility of the rest of his post.

    • dean

      Steve…yes, the core question is whether it is a pollutant or not. If it is, then externalities should be mitigated by the polluter, otherwise there is a market failure. There is already a strong scientific consensus that greenhouse gasses are pollutants, or by-products of industry, transportation and buildings that have the potential to do harm. There is a near political consensus that it is time to take measures to place a cost on the pollutant so as to discourage its use and pave the way for alternatives. Free market advocates need to start proposing their preferred solutions rather than remaining in denial. in fact, by denying so long it may be too late. Cap and trade (rationing) is what we are going to get in all likelihood. A carbon tax would probably be way better and far less bureaucratic.

      Ross…as I pointed out to Rupert a while back…go easy on the bacon unless you have a good cardiologist. Everything in moderation, including moderation and bacon.

      • Steve Buckstein

        Dean, John Charles did offer specific proposed “solutions” in his prepared testimony. Unfortunately, the committee chair gave him only 5 minutes, not the 15 minutes promised. So, out of an approximately 90 minute hearing, the one critic of cap and trade was given only 5 minutes to make his case, with no time for questions from the committee. Ain’t politics wonderful?

        We’ll post his complete written testimony soon so you, and everyone else, can read about much better ways to reduce carbon, if that’s really what you want to do.

        • dean

          Steve…I read John’s testimony on his post. Given the lack of seriousness of his proposal, 5 minutes was more than sufficient. Your placing his proposed “solutions” in quotes isums it up.

          Maybe John C will prove to be right and global warming theory will turn out to be a big scientific mistake in data analysis. But until then, we need serious proposals that are market based or we will get a regulatory/rationing solution. Our nation is about to turn the corner on this issue, at long last.

        • John in Oregon

          Dean you commented:

          > *[J]ust out of curiosity, Aren’t carbon taxes the preferred free market approach to this issue (assuming it is an issue)?*

          Dean, we all know you assume CO2 is an issue, which is fine as it provides a topic for honest discussion. What I haven’t quite figured out yet is whether it’s a belief or a mater of faith for you. And note neither, belief nor faith, are bad things in and of themselves.

          A tax is a charge against a citizen, property, income or activity for the *support* of government.

          Money demanded by government as a tool to force a particular behavior such as a carbon tax is *not* a free market. Now, I am assuming you are just going to support implementing a “solution” anyway. Sooo on that assumption on to the next step in controlling this “dangerous pollutant”.

          That next step is to define what the correct, proper, and acceptable level of CO2. The present number in the atmosphere is generally 370 Parts Pre Million (PPM). _Dean, what is the proper correct number for atmospheric CO2?_ Is the proper number 300 PPM, 200 PPM, 100 PPM, is it 0 PPM? Is the proper number what it was in 1940, or the 1820’s?

          Less than now is not an acceptable answer. Even at zero less than now will never be satisfied.

          > *_A tax on a pollutant discourages its discharge_ and makes alternative dvelopment (sic) more economical by leveling the playing field, whereas the cap and trade puts more power in the hands of government.*

          Ignoring the unsupported claim that CO2 is a pollutant. This kind of Tax, collected for reasons other than providing for the ordinary cost of government, is a form rationing. It’s price rationing which drives up the cost of product beyond the reach of some potential customers.

          How well does this government intervention work?

          The Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2008
          The fuel protests hammer home a clear message. After the 10p tax rebellion, the local elections, and the Crewe by-election, no one can doubt the mood of the country any more. There is insurrection in the air. The British people are ready for change and they don’t believe Labour can deliver it.

          > *A tax on a pollutant discourages its discharge and makes alternative dvelopment (sic) _more economical by leveling the playing field,_ whereas the cap and trade puts more power in the hands of government.*

          It does no such thing. The alternatives are every bit as costly as it was before.

          Tax does not level the playing field. Tax *raises* the playing field for the most efficient product to that of the least efficient product. In this respect it is no different than providing government money to reduce the cost of the least efficient product. Both are government subsidies. The only difference is one raises consumer costs in a very visible way while the other hides Government caused costs from the consumer.

          > *[T]he hockey stick comment was in response to Bob. It has been discredited by bloggers, not by science. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/*

          False. The hockey stick was discredited by statisticians who pointed to the specific statistical procedural violations made by Mann et al. Do you assert that Statisticians are not scientists??? The hockey stick was recognized as discredited before the US Senate.

          You have presented an Ad Hominem argument!

          Isnt it interesting that in presenting this Ad Hominem argument in support of the hockey stick you also used the Argument from authority fallacy by quoting as your authority a BLOG!!!

          > *Steve…I read John’s testimony on his post. Given the lack of seriousness of his proposal, 5 minutes was more than sufficient. Your placing his proposed “solutions” in quotes isums (sic) it up.*

          Another Ad Hominem argument! If you wish to contend the solutions are not serious or unworkable then state;
          1] why the suggestions are not serious, or
          2] why the suggestions will not work

          • dean

            John…belief or faith? Neither. It is my conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence as gathered and interpreted by climate scientists.

            No…I’m not saying a carbon tax is a “free market.” I’m saying it is a necessary correction to a free market failure. Environmental economics 101.

            There is no precisely correct level of atmospheric CO2. There is the amount that was there pre-industrialization, the amount there now, and an amount that will be there in the future depending on our actions and feedback effects (from the increase). The internationally accepted target is to hold the total increased CO2 to a point where total temperature rise will be held to 3.5 degrees F, which may hold off the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise sea levels dramatically.

            CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are within the classic definition of a pollutant if they are by products that are harmful. In the past we have controlled ollutants that are directly, but not indirectly harmful to us.

            A carbon tax would make alternatives more economical in comparison to fossil fuels. And, it will likely make alternatives more economical overall by increaseing investment and efficiency. Plug in hybrids or solar cells for example. They do get “more economical” with research, deployment, and mass production.

            Hockey stick…..too complex…..for Dean’s brain. See: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111 for the appropriate dismantling of your statisticians quibbles with it.

            Oh…the US Senate. Was that Imhoff’s committee? Now THERE is a peer review body for you. Please John. Don’t go there.

            Steve put John’s “solutions” in quotes…I think for a reason. He and John both don;t believe we need any solutions for a non problem, as I would think you agree.

            I addressed John’s “solutions” point by point on the other post. here they are again for your reading convenience:

            1) The US economy may be gradually “de-carbonizing on a production to unit of energy ratio (what a term). Unfortunately the atmosphere is still “carbonizing” at a steady rate. As the world’s numero uno or duo emitter, and the only industrial nation still outside of Kyoto, we have some dues yet to pay. And they are mounting up.

            2) But the forests were already there doing their sequestration thing John. Or are you saying Oregon forest sequestration has increased by 51% over 1990 levels? No double counting allowed.

            3) Allowing contiued release of carbon pollution from fossil fuel burning with no tax or cap is by definition a market failure. So if it is markets you want then you have to put a price on the externality. If you don’t trust government bureaucrats doing it correctly, then make a counter proposal for who should.

            4) If you think the right solution is a carbon tax then step up and support this as the appropriate policy. Don’t introduce the idea as a “gottcha moment.” (This is why they gave you only 5 minutes).

            5) If the state did re-legalize nuclear power (assuming it is currently illegal,) then what are your expectations? Do you really think PGE or PPL are going to try and build a new nuclear plant here, given the Northwest’s less than stellar experience with nuclear power in the past, and given PGE’s failed investment they and we are still paying off? Again…not a serious proposal. They should have limited you to 3 minutes.

            6) If you want to eliminate subsidies for green technologies, then why would you not want to eliminate them for nukes (federal insurance underwriting, federal waste repository,) natural gas, coal (clean coal program) and oil (depletion allowance) as well? You say “chances are” green technologies use more energy than they produce. What is your evidence, beyond corn-based ethanol? I can live with a truly level playing field that does not allow externalization of carbon pollution. I agree that government officials are not the best ones to make energy investment decisions, but apparently neither are the energy companies themselves..

            7) Why not instead go vegan John? just kidding. Biodigesters may be a better solution than subdivisions for the large dairies, if they can ever get one built.

            Oregon can’t “demand” that the feds manage their lands this or that way. Feds have a bigger army. Thinning of overcrowded dryland forests is more often than not going to require public subsidies, especially during a time of depressed prices for timber. Are you okay with that? I didn’t think so.

            9) Anything for another rich guy tax cut. Investment in solar, wind, and other alternative technologies is proceeding very well, and will continue to do so with our existing Capital gains rate as long as tax breaks for investment in alternatives are continued. If you go to across the board capital gains breaks, then capital can as easily flow to Paris Hilton t-shirts, Beanie Babies (the sequel,) or NASCAR as to wind turbines and solar collectors.

            John…you are a smart guy. Either get serious about free(er) market solutions to greenhouse gasses or step aside and let us wasteful liberals solve the problem as inefficiently but inclusively as possible.

          • John in Oregon

            Dean, in response to John Charles you state > *John…you are a smart guy. Either get serious about free(er) market solutions to greenhouse gasses or step aside and let us wasteful liberals solve the problem as inefficiently but inclusively as possible.*

            My OH My feeling a bit smug aren’t we? but, lets put that aside and move on.

            By your own words you seem to recognize there are three perspectives on this issue. Tax, Cap and Trade, and Market.

            What you said above in more direct terms is; Either get serious and support tax, cap and trade, or some combination of the two or. alternatively loose your place at the table.

            Implicit within this argument is the thought that Mr. Charles should trade his free market principals and opposition to excessive government intervention to gain a place at the table in the discussion between Tax and Cap and Trade.

            But there is more. You your self have commented Cap and Trade is what we are going to get.

            So bottom line, you want Mr. Charles to surrender his principals in order to gain a place at the table where he will have no voice. Such a deal.

            BTW I do agree with you that the Democrat party leadership is hell bent on ramming through Cap and Trade.

            Dean, you said > *Naomi Oreskes did a broad survey of 928 published abstracts on global warming (1993-2003) and did not find a single one that rejected the consensus position on global warming:
            1) that the earth is warming
            2) this is due to greenhouse gasses released by people
            3) If we continue to release these gasses temperatures will continue to rise over time
            4) This is a problem that needs to be addressed*

            First lets be clear what Oreskes said in her single page essay, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Oreskes claimed to have *comprehensively examined all* articles in a scientific database with the keywords “climate change”. She then stated there were “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003…”.

            She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view;
            25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and,
            none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

            Note, none of your claims 1 through 4 above is consistent with Oreskes work.

            Setting aside the remarkably small number of papers in a 10 year period, and the astonishing conclusion that not one author questions any aspect of AGW theory, lets accept the essay at face value for the moment.

            Subsequent to the Oreskes work Klaus-Martin Schulte did a follow on study.

            In that study covering 25 months between 2004 and 2006 Schulte found 539 articles. Of which;
            7% Explicitly endorsed the AGW consensus.
            45% Explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW.
            1.1% Explicitly rejected the AGW consensus.
            6% Explicitly or implicitly rejected AGW
            (The remaining papers were neutral.)

            Although there is ample basis to discredit the accuracy of Oreskes, taking the work at face value the two papers show:

            1] There has been a remarkable increase in climatological papers after 2003. Particularly remarkable since Climate Science is “settled”.

            2] There has been an equally remarkable decline (75% to 45%) of combined explicit and implicit endorsement of AGW.

            3] There is a strong growth in work which rejects AGW.

            You say. *[T]here is no precisely correct level of atmospheric CO2.*

            I suspect its more likely you don’t wish to say. Most likely because in fact CO2 levels naturally fluctuate widely over time. I will accept your “amount that was there pre-industrialization…”. What precisely was that in Parts Per Million CO2?

            You say, *The internationally accepted target is to hold the total increased CO2 to a point where total temperature rise will be held to 3.5 degrees F.*

            What precisely is that target in Parts Per Million CO2?

            This is particularly important. Without these numbers then any level of human generated CO2 can be deemed unacceptable. Remember we are talking about legislation.

            You state > *Hockey stick…..too complex…..for Dean’s brain. See: …for the appropriate dismantling of your statisticians quibbles with it.*

            I am familiar with Mann’s January 05 attempted rehabilitation of the hockey stick. It is amusing watching someone with little statistical training attempting to lecture a trained statistician.

            The opening paragraph begins with an Ad hominem attack upon the review process, the publication, the authors who found his error, special interests, and some alarm language thrown in for flavoring.

            The most amazing claim is this; “Indeed, the bizarre resulting claim by MM [McIntyre and McKitrick] of anomalous 15th century warmth (which falls within the heart of the Little Ice Age is at odds with not only the MBH98 [Mann’s own work] reconstruction…”

            _Got that?_ Mann states the claim by McIntyre and McKitrick is bizarre because it is at odds with his work.

            Now on to the second paragraph.

            Mann states “We quickly recap the points for readers who do not want to wade through the details: i) the MBH98 results do not depend on what kind of PCA is used, as long as all significant PCs are included, ii) the results are insensitive to whether PCA is used at all (or whether all proxies are included directly), and iii) the results are replicated using a completely different methodology (Rutherford et al, 2005).”

            Here Mann commits the logical fallacy Special Pleading, which is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. Mann’s statements 1] “do not depend on what kind of PCA” 2] “as long as all significant PCs are included” and 3] “the results are insensitive” are simply introduced without foundation or validation.

            Further Mann claims “[That] the results [of MBH98] are replicated using a completely different methodology”. Here Mann is attempting rehabilitate his work by duplicating the results in another way. If however, as Mann claims, _he made no error,_ then why is this necessary?

            Now take a look at Steve McIntyre response. Note the professional demeanor and the lack of invective as McIntyer responds;

            “Representations and Warranties: [of Mann’s original work, MBH98]
            Now that *the errors of their PC methodology are being understood,* it is my view (and it seems self-evident to me) that *it is insufficient for Mann et al. to merely “get” a hockey stick shape some other way*- they have to do so *while continuing to achieve the representations and warranties of MBH98,* which led to the widespread acceptance of this study.” emphases mine.

            And finally in the last paragraph Mann states;
            ‘For example, it is relatively well established now that the “Little Ice Age” represented only a moderate cooling for the Northern Hemisphere on the average because larger offsetting regional patterns of temperature change (both warm and cold) tended to cancel in a hemispheric or global mean. Modelers now are comparing not just hemispheric mean series, but the actual spatial patterns of estimated and observed climate changes in past centuries. See e.g. our review paper (Schmidt et al, 2004), where the response of a climate model to estimated past changes in natural forcing due to solar irradiance variations and explosive volcanic eruptions, is shown to match the spatial pattern of reconstructed temperature changes during the “Little Ice Age” (which includes enhanced cooling in certain regions such as Europe) as well as the smaller hemispheric-mean changes.’

            Lets look at only two parts of this response by Mann.

            First “Modelers now are comparing not just hemispheric mean series, [such as MBH98] but the actual spatial patterns of estimated and observed climate changes in past centuries…”

            This is a Tautology an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Specifically, the models, which were build based on a temperature series are used to provide validation of the series they are built upon.

            Mann also states “[I]t is _relatively well established_ now that the “Little Ice Age” (LIA) represented only a moderate cooling for the Northern Hemisphere…” Here Mann claims the Little Ice Age was small and found only in the northern hemisphere.

            Logically this is an Argument from Authority. Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, but the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

            In response I proffer, Dr Craig Loehle A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based On Non-Treering Proxies

            Loehle’s reconstruction shows the Roman Warm Period, some what warmer than today, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), significantly warmer than today, the Maunder Minimum (1,600s little ice age), very significantly colder than today, and the Dalton Minimum (1,800s) colder than today. Over time the earth has warmed, cooled and warmed again.

            There is something remarkable about Loehle’s work. It is the *first reconstruction* that used prosy data that has already been *calibrated to temperature* in a previously *peer reviewed article.* And based upon Shihua Cave China, GRIP borehole Greenland, Chesapeake Bay, Sargasso Sea, Caribbean Sea, South Africa. West Africa, Southeast Atlantic, Western Tropical Pacific, Northern Pacific, and Central Alps, this work the significant MWP and LIA are not Europe only.

            This work contests Mann’s argument from authority.

          • dean

            John…I’m not climbing up on that hockey stick with you. Except to say that since Mann’s conclusions were replicated in other analyses, they stand. Long live the hockey stick (sorry…I just had to do that).

            The internationally accepted target for capping atmospheric CO2 is 450 parts per million. Of that 170 PPM is expected to be from human contribution. The current models (that you don’t believe anyway) predict a 2 degree C rise in global average temp if we can stabalize atmospheric CO2 at 450 PPM. This 2 deg C rise, which does not sound like much, would amount to the warmest planet in a few million years. The last time the earth was that warm sea levels were something like 6 meters higher, though it will take some time before Greenland melts. Business as usual results in a way higher CO2 level, and a temp increase as much as 8 deg C. Off the historical planetary charts. Waterworld.

            On your larger question about John Charles, his principles, and so forth. No, I don’t expect him or you to give up your principles. What I hope for (faint hope that it is) is that you and other skeptics who have demonstratably large brains will come to recognize that we humans may be in a serious pickle, and that the “free market,” while it serves us very well in many ways, is a great servant but a poor master. It has no proven coping mechanisms for dealing with a global pollutant that is invisible, directly harmless, important to our economy (cheap energy,) and is even essential to life in certain quantities.

            The only way we (liberals) know of to get our arms around this is to “artificially” raise the price of carbon to a level that will discourage its use and allow alternative energy sources to out compete it, or to regulate it out of existance (cap and trade). If you or John as a third way, or a preference among the first 2, then step up and join the discussion. If your only contribution is continued denial, or in John’s case an obviously not serious list of non-starters, then have your 5 minutes, go back to your blogs, and don’t whine about it.

            I don’t mean for that to sound harsh. I respect both of your intelligence. But “sticking to your principles” at the price of my (our) planet’s climate is not workable for me, and dare I say a building majority across America and in the rest of the world. We have to get on with it. Its just too risky to put it off any longer.

        • John in Oregon

          Everyone: I am going to defend Dean here.

          He said > *I’m “on the left,” and I’m not interested in using global warming “as an excuse to stop capitalism and free market economics.”*

          I think we all know that within any hot topic of debate there is likely to be a group that will use the debate to further their own unrelated goals. Another group is likely to use the debate to further their own personal gain. BUT … Today isnt conspiracy theory Thursday.

          I have thus far seen *no evidence* that would suggest to me that Dean belongs in either of the categories I mentioned above. I have no intention of making such a conclusion, unless and until I have evidence to support such a supposition.

          > *[A]s I pointed out to Rupert a while back…go easy on the bacon unless you have a good cardiologist. Everything in moderation, including moderation and bacon.*

          Another alarmist fallacy. To wit, fat calories are worse than other calories. 🙂 Deans reference to moderation is a moderate one.

          Dean you commented > *The computer models have held up.*

          I believe this is false. Can you point to a single climate model that has reasonably predicted the future without having its calculation assumptions modified, input data adjusted, or both?

          Dean you said, > *There is a consensus.*

          To beat an already quite dead horse. But, then, I suppose we just must.

          The American Heritage dictionary defines Consensus as: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:

          It therefore requires only one or at most a few to negate a consensus.

          Approximately 32,000 scientists, including some 9,000 holding a PHD have signed a statement which includes the following:

          _There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”_

          Further, from an unrelated source, the following persons and some 400 others, question the CO2 / warming link.

          Dr. Freeman J. Dyson Physics
          Dr. Asmunn Moene, Meteorological Institute, Norway
          Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist
          Dr. Marcel Leroux, climatology
          Dr. Al Pekarek, geology
          Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
          Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, environmental sciences
          Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geology / paleoclimatology
          Dr. R.M. Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory
          Dr. Chris de Freitas, climatology
          Dr. Petr Chylek, Physics and Atmospheric Science,
          Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, , International Arctic Research Center
          Dr. Bjarne Andresen, The Niels Bohr Institute
          Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science, IPCC expert reviewer
          Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Environment Canada, IPCC Expert Reviewer
          Dr. Reid A. Bryson, UNEP, Center for Climatic Research
          Dr. Ian D. Clark, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology
          Dr David Evans, mathematics / carbon accounting
          Dr. Craig D. Idso, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
          Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change,
          Dr Fred Michel, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences

          > *There is already a strong scientific consensus that greenhouse gasses are pollutants, or by-products of industry, transportation and buildings that have the potential to do harm.*

          See my comments regarding consensus.

          • dean

            John…below is a partial list of national and international science organizations that support the basic tenets of global warming theory:
            Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
            Royal Society of Canada
            Chinese Academy of Sciences
            Academié des Sciences (France)
            Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
            Indian National Science Academy
            Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
            Science Council of Japan
            Russian Academy of Sciences
            Royal Society (United Kingdom)
            National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
            Australian Academy of Sciences
            Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
            Caribbean Academy of Sciences
            Indonesian Academy of Sciences
            Royal Irish Academy
            Academy of Sciences Malaysia
            Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

            In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published conclusions supporting global warming theory:

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

            Naomi Oreskes did a broad survey of 928 published abstracts on global warming (1993-2003) and did not find a single one that rejected the consensus position on global warming:
            1) that the earth is warming
            2) this is due to greenhouse gasses released by people
            3) If we continue to release these gasses temperatures will continue to rise over time
            4) This is a problem that needs to be addressed

            Climate models are designed to predict average temperature cahnges many decades into the future. We don’t have any other laboratory other than the earth itself to test these on, so only time will be the test. But over the shorter term, in 1988 Hansen of NASA GISS predicted that average temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction to a Senate panel, now generally considered the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, the data proved his predictions, with the only adjustment being the timing between his simulated volcanic eruption and when Mount Pinatubo actually errupted.(Grist)

            There are different definitions of “consensus,” from “general agreement” on up to complete agreement. Unanimity on any large issue is pretty rare. You can find reputable scientists who still question evolution. That does not mean there is not a scientific consensus on evolution, and it does not mean that every aspect of evolution is agreed to by everyone.

            I’m guessing that the “32,000 scientists” you refer to are the computer engineers, petroleum geologists, economists, and so forth who were recruited by that odd fellow down near Cave Junction. Its just more obfuscation John. Few if any among them are climate scientists.

            But I do appreciate that you absolved me of being part of the vast liberal-socialist-global warming cabal. Because if I am going to be part of that I want to get some bennies for my time.

            On my advice to Rupert, I was thinking more of the sodium, not the fat.

          • dean

            John…an article by Freeman Dyson you might find of interest:
            https://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

            In it, he appears to accept the reality of global warming theory, but continues to question the appropriate response. I think this is a more productive debate to have.

          • John in Oregon

            I was going to respond to your earlier post above, and I will at some point. _Nevertheless here you have raised what I consider to be the single most important and central question._

            Thanks for the tip on the Dyson book reviews. The prolog is excellent.

            It’s a bit hard to sort out Dysons thoughts as his intent is to speak to the contents of the books he is reviewing. But, then I saw its actually unnecessary to divine Dyson thoughts, once you asked the question > *[Dyson] continues to question the appropriate response. I think this is a more productive debate to have.* I concur as I suspect would also Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

            Great thoughts often start with seemingly simple questions like the one you ask here. As I considered I saw the debate as even larger than you had framed or I had thought.

            In direct terms the path to where we are today is simple.

            1] Humans burn fuel causing CO2
            2] CO2 makes the world hot
            3] Humans must stop. So
            4] The debate is which draconian cutback to use.

            We really ought to be discussing what the effects of warming or cooling will be. Both are possible. Then from there looking at what actions will produce the best results.

            I thought we had reached the extremes of the humans must stop thinking. And then I learned how little I knew about extremes as I saw this article from the Australian service News.Com

            *ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) website tells kids when they should die
            News.Com.au May 26 2008*

            AN ABC website has been accused of portraying farmers and forestry workers as evil and telling kids how much carbon they can produce before they die.

            Too much carbon production causes a cartoon pig to explode, leaving behind a pool of blood. (In the screen shot provided with the article the child is advised he should die at 1.2 years of age.)

            “I know there’s a little bit of goth in all of us, but this might be taking it just a little too far,” Senator Fifield said of the quasi life-expectancy calculator.

            Senator Fifield said other episodes in the series portrayed people who eat meat, those involved in the nuclear industry and farmers who grow GM crops as evil.

            Amoung comments I found about this story, “The thing I find amazing is the average foot print is 24.6 tonnes of CO2, which calculates out to 9.3 years old! Where it tells the child “YOU SHOULD DIE AT THE AGE 9.3!” Guess what age this kids games is marketed to? That’s right, 9 year olds.” Anthony Watts

            Given the sensitivity of the subject of Childhood suicide I think its obvious that the debate has gone well off the rails.

          • dean

            John…the Austrailian example is not part of the serious debate, so why boher with it.

            I would re-cast your 4 points as follows:

            1) Humans burn fossil fuels and engage in land use practices that release more CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere than the earth is able to use and store.
            2) Raising of greenhouse gas levels has raised the average surface temperature of the earth. Further increasing greenhouse gasses will further increase surface temperatures at a predictable rate.
            3) If humans fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we risk raising surface temperatures to a point that has dire consequnces for our children and grandchildren and the ecosystems we depend on.
            4) The debate should be over what is the most effective and economical ways to make adjustments to our energy use and sources.

            Respectfully, no…we should not be “dicussing what the effects of warming or cooling will be. ” That discussion wastes more time that we don’t have. We should be conserving energy, deploying already available alternative energy systems, and increasing our investment in new technologies. We should discuss and debate item 4 above.

            And if it should turn out we erred in our understanding of items 1-3, then we can relax and go on to other issues, and you and John Charles can say “we told you so.”

  • Patrick

    For additional information on the carbon cap and trade scheme, see the feature article John did for BrainstormNW magazines April issue – https://www.brainstormnw.com/archive/apr08_feature.html.

    The governor has laid out his mandate for those is this state, both the citizens as well as those who are state employees, that global warming is a fact and that Oregon is going to be a leader in reducing this states impact on the planet. There seems to be zero tolerance for anyone who may even question this issue or try to have a rational discussion about it. Hence, John gets 5 minutes instead of the promised 15 and mysteriously there is no time for questions to be asked. I found out about this lack of tolerance personally a few months ago when I tried to ask Bill Bradbury a few questions at one of his Inconvenient Truth slide shows. I thought he was going to bonk me over the head with his cane when I uttered the words “market” and “entrepreneur”.

    Citizens should keep a very close eye, not only on policy changes being proposed, but also those that are already being implemented through means that most may not know about. Case in point: The recently revised and adopted state residential building code (2008 Oregon Residential Building Code). Revised and adopted on a three year cycle, Oregon has a specific chapter in the code for energy requirements. This chapter was first adopted in 1992 and has not been revised since – until this year. The changes made were a direct result of the Governors mandates. One key change: 50% of all lighting fixtures in a new home or addition must have high efficiency bulbs. Those are bulbs defined as having a “minimum efficacy of 40 lumens per input watt.” What is the most common type of bulb for this, which is approved for use? – a compact florescent. These are the same bulbs which the EPA requires a near 12 step process for clean up should one break. Why? Because they contain mercury. Does the governor or the DOE care? No.

    My guess is that while the trees are collecting up CO2 for future release, our landfills will be filling up with mercury from these wonderful little gems that we are supposed to use to help save the planet. My prediction: in a few years we will be reading two types of news stories. One will tell about excess mercury being found in and around landfills and other areas where people randomly dump their trash and the environmentalist, politicians and media will all be crying foul and pointing the finger at everyone except who they should be pointing at – themselves. The second series of stories will be telling of lawsuits by homeowners and individuals against builders, light bulb manufacturers and suppliers because they broke one or more of these bulbs or their kids were playing with one and guess what? now they have mercury poisoning and their house is contaminated.

    But hey, who cares if things cost 10 times as much or a few people get sick or possibly die, we are saving the planet. Aren’t we?

  • Crawdude

    Global Warming was not even a Theory, it was a hypothesis and is now well on its way to being a crackpot idea. Kinda fitting since it was Algores sole purpose in life, lol!

  • pk2

    The problem is that global warming is spilling into other areas, polar bear endangerment, wildfires, etc. There are still things we do not know about warming, so is it not best to be safe than sorry. Redcuing pollution can only help us.

    • Anonymous

      *PK2:* The problem is that global warming is spilling into other areas, polar bear endangerment, wildfires, etc.
      *JK:* Much of which is pure BS.
      For instance Polar Bears are doing just fine, their numbers dramatically up over the last decades. Wildfires are more a bout rain than warm. Think of the rain forests in the tropics.

      *PK2:* There are still things we do not know about warming, so is it not best to be safe than sorry.
      *JK:* You are forgetting the terrible cost we will pay to cut CO2.

      *PK2:* Reducing pollution can only help us.
      *JK:* The debate is not about pollution, it is about cutting, a non-pollutant, CO2 which is a byproduct of all viable energy production except nuclear. In reality, it is about strangling the economy by cutting energy production.

      Thanks
      JK

  • jim karlock

    *dean:* Naomi Oreskes did a broad survey of 928 published abstracts on global warming (1993-2003) and did not find a single one that rejected the consensus position on global warming:
    *JK: *
    First, it was an essay, probably not peer reviewed.

    Second, it was not a broad survey – it was very narrow:
    “That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’ ( 9).”

    Do you see the problem here?
    The use of the restrictive criteria “global climate change” would reject the many papers the claim the sun drives earth’s climate because they generally don’t use all of the words “global climate change” (it is unclear if this was a phrase search, or what the criteria for the occurrences of the three words actually were.) . But it a makes a good story for the gullible, scientifically illiterate, science editors that infest the popular press.

    BTW, if I recall, there are several thousand papers that match the alleged keywords, not 928 – but that may be the original, mistaken, claim that the keywords were “climate change”. Embarrassingly, they had to issue an erratum.

    If you are really sharp, you can catch just a bit of bias in her statement:
    “The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.”

    (But she does admit “Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics.”)

    I just ran a phrase search on a few papers – here are a few papers that DO NOT include the phrase “global climate changeglobal climate change” Most of them do not support Naomi’s position on warming.

    > HAS THE IPCC EXAGGERATED ADVERSE IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN SOCIETIES?
    > Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays
    > March of the Zealots
    > High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present
    > THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
    > Forested Southern Greenland Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a
    > Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing
    > Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850
    > Ocean surface warming: The North Atlantic remains within the envelope of previous recorded conditions
    > Ocean surface warming: The North Atlantic remains within the envelope of previous recorded conditions
    > How W We Know Global W Warming is Real

    You are again shown to be listening to fools, idiots and liars. Please try to read some literature on the other side.

    Thanks
    JK

    • John in Oregon

      JK, I happen to agree with you that there is ample basis to discredit Oreskes work. Finding less than 1,000 papers in a 10 year period is a remarkably small number for a high profile subject. Moreover the purpose of scientific debate is to *challenge* claims and assertions in the quest of the truth. The most astonishing Oreskes conclusion is that not one author questions any aspect of AGW theory. On its face that is simply laughable.

      Oreskes work was immediately challenged by science writers and scientists alike. The choirs of the rabble in support of Oreskes was to be expected. This is why I chose not to go off in the swamp of invective hurled at any who question the quality of Oreskes of work. That no one was able to precisely duplicate Oreskes claimed results is refutation enough.

      As an example of that swamp is this comment from _Think Progress_ which has the single virtue of being reproducible in a family oriented forum such as this.

      *”OK, who is this Benny Peiser? Unlike Oreskes he has no scientific training nor did he study the issue of anthropogenic climate change for decades as for example Gore has done it since the 60s.”*

      Benny Peiser is one of the many challengers of the Oreskes work. Four things are worth mentioning about what this comment does not say.

      1] its an invictive Ad Hominem attack.
      2] Oreskes’s training is in History which is relevant to the Argument from Authority made by the post author.
      3] Benny Peiser is a prominent U.K. scientist and publisher of CCNet, an electronic newsletter to which thousands subscribe.
      4] Al Gore was tapped in 1993 by Enron to promote CO2 cap and trade. Mr, Gore was an obvious choice due to his family association with Occidental Petroleum coal division. Prior to 93 the subject was not of interest to Mr. Gore.

      In addressing this subject I chose to compare and contrast Oreskes work to that of Schulte, a follow on study. The comparison shows;

      1] There has been a remarkable increase in climatological papers after 2003. Particularly remarkable since Climate Science is “settled”.
      2] There has been an equally remarkable decline (75% to 45%) of combined explicit and implicit endorsement of AGW.
      3] There is a strong growth in work which rejects AGW.

      I chose this approach for two reasons;

      1] One cannot attack Sheulte without similarly attacking Oreskes.
      2] One cannot attack my results without showing Oreskes number of papers low, or Oreskes number of support papers high, or Oreskes lack of rejection in error.

      I would make one point of caution. Oreskes and Schulte both used the scientific database for their sampling. Web searches are less than reliable as the results are prone to extraneous sampling.

      • dean

        John…that there is a scientific “consensus” on global warming is supported by, but is not dependent on Oreskes’ findings. The IPCC represents a huge number of leading climate scientists who reached their latest consensus in 2007. And every major scientific body that has climate scientists in it has also supported the consensus position.

        Nevertheless, Peiser’s attempt to replicate Oreskes was flawed in 2 ways. First he used diferent key words (climate change, instead of global climate change). Second he did not limit his search to peer reviewed papers. But even with those changes he found very few papers that attempted to refute global warming.

        Beyond that, Peiser published a letter in Australian Media Watch in which he retracted parts of his original critique. He wrote: “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”

        https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

        Oreskes never claimed that the consensus was “unanamous.” She did claim that of the 928 peer papers she looked at, none had findings contrary to the consensus view on global climate change.

        It seems to me questioning Oreskes findings is picking at nits. There is no purchase there for global warming skeptics, except to sow more doubt among the uninitiated.

        And by the way, Oreskes has a PhD in geologic research and history of science from Stanford. Thus she is “scientist, though not a climate scientist.
        https://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html

        Al Gore published Earth in Balance in 1992. I have not read it, but understand that it deals pretty extensively with global warming. I would imagine this is why Exxon “tapped him,” if that is indeed the case (he was vice president by 1993, so I wonder what “tapping” means?)

        It is hardly remarkable that there have been a lot of papers on climate since 2003, given the increased attention global climate has gotten. It would be remarkable if there was a decrease in interest, don’t you agree?

        Sure, there is a growth in attempts to poke holes in AGW. Just no success to speak of yet.

        • John in Oregon

          You might note the purpose of my post to JK was to caution about precisely what you are doing. You will note I said there is basis to discredit Oreskes work AND used her results without contest.

          > *Oreskes never claimed that the consensus was “unanamous.” (sic)*

          Either point out the posting and thread number where I stated anything like Oreskes claimed unanimous support of AGW
          *OR*
          Withdraw your misquote of what I said.

          > *Oreskes has a PhD in geologic research and history of science from Stanford. Thus she is “scientist, though not a climate scientist.*

          Please point to the posting and thread number where I said anything like Oreskes is not a scientist.
          *OR*
          withdraw you misstatement of what I said.
          I stated Oreskes specialty is history just as you just did.

          > *Nevertheless, Peiser’s attempt to replicate Oreskes was flawed in 2 ways.*

          Precisely how does this comment relate in any wayt to my reference to the swamp of invective hurled at any who question the quality of Oreskes of work?

          .> *First he used diferent (sic) key words (climate change, instead of global climate change).*

          Its best to get the facts correct. The Oreskes essay, as published in Science, used term “climate change”. It was Peiser’s work which uncovered this error. Science subsequently published an erratum changing “climate change” to “global climate change”.

          > *It seems to me questioning Oreskes findings is picking at nits.*

          You were the one who brought up Oreskes. Subsequent to the Oreskes work Klaus-Martin Schulte did a follow on study. Accepting Oredkes without contest, the relevant data is this:

          —————————— Oreskes —– Schulte
          —————————— 93 – 03 —— 04 -06
          Articles / Year ————— 92.8 ———- 259
          Articles explicitly endorsing – NS ———— 7%
          Articles endorsing ———– 75% ——— 45%
          Articles explicitly rejecting — 00% ——– 1.1%
          Articles rejecting ————- 00% ———- 6%

          1] There has been a remarkable increase in climatological papers after 2003. Particularly remarkable since Climate Science is “settled”.

          2] There has been an equally remarkable decline (75% to 45%) of combined explicit and implicit endorsement of AGW.

          3] There is a strong growth in work which rejects AGW.

          > *It is hardly remarkable that there have been a lot of papers on climate since 2003, given the increased attention global climate has gotten.*

          Remember your words are that “there is a scientific “consensus” on global warming” and, if the science is settled, then;

          1] why are the number of papers increasing, and
          2] why did the member of papers supporting fall from 75% to 45%, while
          3] the number of papers rejecting rose from none to 6% and
          4] the number of neutral papers also increased

          > *Al Gore published Earth in Balance in 1992…*

          How does this change the obviously ridiculous _Think Progress_ posting that “…for example Gore has done it since the 60s.” Al Gore was age 12 in 1960.

          • dean

            John…the “unanamous” quote was referring to Peiser’s initial critique of Oreskes. It was not being attribted to you, so there is nothing to withdraw.

            You said: “Oreskes training in history…” implying that she is an historian, not a scientist. She is a scientist (geologist) and a science historian. So you did not “mistate” anything. You merely left out an important detail that I filled in for you. You can thank me later.

            I never said “the science is settled.” Science is never “settled.” There is a present consensus among climate scientists on the core thesis that increases in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere put up there by humans have caused average surface temps to warm, and that continuing to put more gasses up there will warm things by a predictable amount (within a range) due to radiative forcing. There is a lot of uncertainty over various bits and pieces, but not over the core thesis.

            I don’t know anyhing about what Think Progess said. I was referring to your claim that “Prior to 93 the subject was not of interest to Mr. Gore.” If you meant “the subject” as cap and trade, that might be true. If you meant “the subject as global warming, it is clearly not the case. Anyway…Gore is hardly the point.

            As far as I can tell, the Klaus-Martin-Schulte research has not been accepted for publication in a peer review journal. It has been dissected by others who point out that several of the papers that supposedly “reject” the consensus view do not actually do so.

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html

          • John in Oregon

            > *John…below is a partial list of national and international science organizations that support the basic tenets of global warming theory:*

            The American Heritage dictionary defines Consensus as: “An opinion or position reached by a group as a *whole”:* That is to say there is no descenting position. It therefore requires only one or at most a few to negate a consensus. The existence of a majority / minority position negates a consensus.

            Citing the existence of dissent breaks a consensus. One can not therefor rehabilitate a consensus by the converse, citing further members of the majority.

            > *John…that there is a scientific “consensus” on global warming is supported by, but is not dependent on Oreskes’ findings. The IPCC represents a huge number of leading climate scientists who reached their latest consensus in 2007.*

            It is true that scientists are involved with the IPCC. But, the IPCC is a political organization, controlled by politicians, and operating under the mandate of a political organization. Never forget that fact when evaluating its product. You quite correctly noted this point in reference to a committee of the US Senate.

            The IPCC does not represent science or scientists. In the not too distant future it may well be necessary, in the defense of Science, to point out this fact.

            > *John…I’m not climbing up on that hockey stick with you. Except to say that since Mann’s conclusions were replicated in other analyses, they stand. Long live the hockey stick (sorry…I just had to do that).*

            To borrow a phrase, did the “replication” carry the same “representations and warranties”? That is, does the “replication” meet the same claims made by Mann in the original work? I would submit they do not and therefor are not sufficient.

            > *You said: “Oreskes training [is] in history…” implying that she is an historian, not a scientist. She is a scientist (geologist) and a science historian. So you did not “mistate” (sic) anything. You merely left out an important detail that I filled in for you.*

            The essay in question is historical research. Oreskes training in history is a cite to authority. However, if you prefer, I would be happy to withdraw my statement in favor of; “Oreskes is a scientist” implying that she has no special training in historical research.

            > *John…that there is a scientific “consensus” on global warming is supported by, but is not dependent on Oreskes’ findings.*

            See my comments regarding consensus above.

            > *Beyond that, Peiser published a letter in Australian Media Watch in which he retracted parts of his original critique. He wrote: “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”*

            An important operative phrase in Peisers statement is _”However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”_ See my comments regarding consensus above.

            Moreover the changes between Oreskes and Schulte results show increasing descent with AGW, as does the growing number of descenting voices since Schulte’s work in 2006.

            > *As far as I can tell, the Klaus-Martin-Schulte research has not been accepted for publication in a peer review journal. It has been dissected by others who point out that several of the papers that supposedly “reject” the consensus view do not actually do so.*

            Peer review does not guarantee accuracy of published articles. Work is often withdrawn after publication, frequently by the authors. A particular embryonic work comes to mind.

            Nor does non-peer reviewed publication convey any label of fallaciousness. All work either stands or falls based on accuracy, reliability, repeatability, and evidence, not individual or group opinion.

            Additionally many studies find a basis to contest one or another of the basic tenants of AGW. That they do not explicitly or implicitly reject AGW as a whole does not constitute implicit endorsement as many of the “dissectors” imply.

            Further we have the logical fallacy of Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. Specifically;
            Oreskes error in stating her search term (central to her research) is an erratum;
            Peiser’s interpretation of an article is discredited, and;
            Schulte research is dissected.

            *Which brings me to a question.*

            As I look at what those who contest AGW, even with this group I find little disagreement that there has been an uptick in global temperature in the 20th century. Therefor it would seem, beyond Mann’s ego, there would be little need to replicate the hockey stick. And yet a great deal of effort was expended to do just that. _Why is this so necessary?_

            > *I never said “the science is settled.” Science is never “settled.” There is a present consensus among climate scientists…..*

            In the public debate, such as here, the term consciences and the term Settled Science go is hand in glove.

            > *John…the Austrailian example is not part of the serious debate, so why boher (sic) with it.*

            This is part of the extremes of the public debate. It goes with and you cant just conveniently throw it under the bus.

  • John in Oregon

    I note the pollution list is missing one of the most dangerous chemicals known.

    Dihydrogen Monoxide which is a colorless, odorless, and dangerous chemical. Each year accidental inhalation of Dihydrogen Monoxide, even in small quantities, causes numerous fatalities in the United States. More 3,000 are killed every year.

    Another problem is that Dihydrogen Monoxide is the strongest of the greenhouse gases. Although the government in Oregon has not yet moved to control this dangerous chemical I am assured regulations for sharp mandatory reductions are on the agenda for the 09 legislature.

    Sadly yet another death was featured on the news tonight. Even in the smallest quantities this chemical is fatal. In low doses symptoms may include slurred speech or drowsiness.

    Some groups associated with “industry” claim this dangerous chemical is normal in the environment said an environmental protection spokesman. These industry groups are no different than Big Oil or Big Energy, they simply ignore and gloss over the thousands of victims each year.

    For those interested in doing further research on Dihydrogen Monoxide, its chemical formula is HOH or more commonly H2O.

    🙂

  • Pingback: tickled()

  • Pingback: pengertian komunitas()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: pengertian budaya menurut para ahli()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: observasi adalah()

  • Pingback: the first computer()

  • Pingback: contoh judul proposal()

  • Pingback: pengertian siswa()

  • Pingback: karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian penduduk dan bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: observasi adalah()

  • Pingback: contoh judul proposal()

  • Pingback: contoh limbah rumah tangga()

  • Pingback: pengertian administrasi()

  • Pingback: doa ulang tahun untuk diri sendiri()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: pengertian demonstrasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian penduduk()

  • Pingback: pengertian keterampilan()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas()

  • Pingback: dampak kenakalan remaja()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas()

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)