Invited Testimony on Carbon Taxes and Limiting Greenhouse Gases

Testimony of John A. Charles, Jr.
Before the House Environment and Energy Committee
House Revenue Committee
Regarding Proposed Global Warming Legislation

May 29, 2008

My name is John Charles, president and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute. Cascade is a nonpartisan policy research center working to promote economic opportunity in Oregon. I have been involved professionally with environmental policy for the past 30 years and am familiar with the politics of climate change. In recent months I have focused a fair amount of time examining claims made about carbon offset projects in the Pacific Northwest. My comments today reflect that work.

I have been asked to speak about two conceptual approaches to global warming legislation: a carbon tax, and a regulatory limit on greenhouse gases (GHGs). Before I begin, however, I would like to place this issue in the context of the GHG reduction goals embodied in HB 3543.

First, the basic goal of HB 3543 to “arrest the growth of Oregon’s GHG emissions by 2010″ has probably been met. Gross emissions peaked in 2000 and were at least 2.5% below that for the years 2001-04. While one cannot predict the future, the fact that the U.S. economy has been steadily de-carbonizing for the last half-century makes it unlikely that Oregon emissions will grow much, if at all.

Second, the HB 3543 goal for 2020 — reduce emissions to 10% below 1990 levels — has also been met because Oregon’s forests sequester roughly 51% of gross emissions . Oregon total estimated GHG emissions in 1990 were 55.506 MMTCO2e; net emissions in 2004 were 33.069 MMTCO2e””well in excess of the 10% reduction goal. So there is no need to rush to judgment on GHG policy.

Carbon taxes vs. a regulatory cap

Neither proposal is truly “market-based”. Both use pricing methods, but depend entirely on the superior prescience of government regulation/taxation to price and ration energy use more intelligently than the private sector. Unfortunately, the ethanol debacle now unfolding is a reminder of the hazards of handing markets over to government planners, and it is by no means the only example.

Carbon Tax: Possible Advantages

If the legislature feels compelled to do something, a carbon tax has a few advantages relative to the so-called “cap-and-trade” (C&T) concept. The most notable is truth in advertising: it’s called a TAX. That’s probably the reason why it’s not the favored approach of most interventionists, since they realize that consumers have little appetite for an energy tax.

A carbon tax would also be easier to administer than a C&T scheme, and the negative effects of the tax could be mitigated if it were designed to be revenue-neutral and the funds used to lower other, less-desirable taxes such as those levied on income or dividends.

Disadvantages

Unfortunately, the advantages of a carbon tax are far outweighed by the disadvantages. Most notably, there is no way to calculate the optimal tax rate. According to one scholar, there are at least 106 estimates in the literature of the appropriate “price” for a ton of CO2. The mode of those estimates is $2 and the mean is $14; how would a legislative body know which number is the best, assuming any of them are?

Architects of a proposed carbon tax suffer from severe knowledge constraints. There is no way to know what the tax rate should be because you can’t work backwards from the end goal. There is a chain of hurdles impeding any such attempt:

“¢ Since global climate is a random, non-linear system there is no way to know what changes in human activity would affect climate (if at all) ;

“¢ Water vapor is the most dominant GHG, not CO2, so a tax on CO2 is, by definition, a low-leverage policy that might be irrelevant;

“¢ Even assuming that CO2 regulation is meaningful relative to water vapor, roughly 97.1% of worldwide CO2 is emitted from natural sources, while 2.9% are anthropogenic; and

“¢ Of the 2.9% that is human related, Oregon’s net emissions amounted to 0.086% in 2004.

Given these problems, it’s clear that the tax rate would be arbitrary, based on the lowest common denominator of politics.

Moreover, one of the primary theoretical benefits of the tax — using the revenues to offset other taxes on labor or capital — has almost no chance of ever being adopted. Therefore most of the money would be pork-barreled away to a few interest groups. Anyone who doubts the likelihood of this scenario should examine the use of tobacco tax funds received from the MSA.

Finally, and most importantly, there would be no environmental benefits to those paying the tax today because CO2 is not even a pollutant. Reducing it does not make the air healthier or improve scenic vistas of the Cascades. If any benefits do exist, they will redound to future generations (decades or centuries in the future) who will not have been asked to pay.

Cap and Trade: Advantages: There are no advantages in practice, if the European experience is any guide.

Disadvantages:

“¢ There is no way to know what the cap should be, for the same reason a rational tax rate cannot be calculated.

“¢ All parameters of this convoluted program would be subject to intense gaming and rent-seeking by interest groups.

“¢ Experience to date shows that there are many problems associated with the “trading” part of the concept, including a lack of property rights, lack of additionality for offset projects, lack of verification, and lack of any empirical benefits.

“¢ An economic analysis prepared by CRA International modeled the impact on Oregon if the US adopted a federal cap on GHG emissions; the study showed that by 2020, Oregon would have 16,000 fewer jobs and natural gas prices would be 56% higher.

“¢ A second study, prepared by Global Insight, found that a carbon cap would reduce Oregon’s GSP by 2.7% and employment by 23,100 by 2020 (from what it would have been).

“¢ Estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office predict that a mandated 15% cut in CO2 emissions would result in an annual cost increase of $680 (or 3.3% of total household income) for the lowest quintile of households, $1,160 per year (2.8% of income) for those in the middle quintile, and $2,180 (1.7% of earnings) for those in the highest quintile.

“¢ Cap and trade regulation would create a state-run carbon cartel. The cartel would then give monetary value to something that is currently worthless (carbon emissions). Once this occurred, there would be no way to back out of the policy. The legislature would be fueling a speculative “bubble” in carbon trading that would institutionalize rent-seeking by powerful interest groups. Since there would be no actual value added to the economy from these coerced income transfers, the net effect would be to divert scarce capital from productive investments, thereby lowering the standard of living for Oregonians.

Actual Market-Based Policies for Reducing GHGs

A true “market-based” strategy for addressing GHGs would harness the power of the market to improve the efficiency of the economy and reduce carbon intensity through technology investments, land-use changes, and improvements in transportation management. Specific policies for consideration should include at least the following:

Focus on reforming the mis-pricing in the transportation sector. Transportation is the largest source of CO2, with much room for efficiency gains. You should begin reform by gradually replacing broad-based transportation taxes and subsidies with user charges. Specifically, this should be implemented as congestion pricing on all Portland freeways, using open-road electronic tolling to collect variable tolls. This would greatly improve livability, eliminate billions of dollars in economic losses, and also reduce GHGs. The reason is that traffic congestion is, by itself, is a major source of CO2; Barth et al. estimate that CO2 emissions per/mile in free-flow traffic are 60-90% lower than emissions generated in stop-and-go conditions.

Also, empirical evidence from the SR 91 Express Tollway in Southern California (a 10-mile highway with 14 different prices) shows that congestion-priced highway lanes are roughly twice as efficient as unpriced lanes at moving vehicles. At the most crowded time of the week — 3:00 p.m. eastbound on Friday — the priced lanes carry 1,600 vehicles per hour, while the “free” lanes carry only 800.

Although it’s counter-intuitive, market-based pricing of highways does not toll people off the road; it actually tolls them on by allowing double the number of cars to use the same facility. It also provides a much higher level of driver satisfaction due to the higher road speed (the average travel speed on SR 91X is more than 60 MPH at all times).

In addition to benefiting motorists, congestion pricing creates “virtual capacity” for express buses, making bus service more attractive to consumers. This would increase the utilization of transit buses and reduce the energy consumption per passenger-mile of those vehicles. This is important because transit buses have become steadily less efficient over the past 35 years, mostly due to under-utilization of buses on routes that make no economic sense (but are maintained for political reasons).

Legalize nuclear power in Oregon. This should probably be considered the litmus test of the legislature’s commitment to de-carbonization. If the legislature is serious about GHG reduction, we should begin discussing the 1980 prohibition on nuclear power in Oregon. The economy is going to need more base-load electrical generation, and it will not be coming from unreliable sources like wind, solar or wave energy.

This is not to say the legislature should subsidize nuclear power, or even promote it; but private investors should at least have the opportunity to provide it.

Eliminate subsidies on so-called “green technologies” that cannot make it on their own in the marketplace. The chances are they are using more resources (including energy) than they will save over their lifetime””otherwise the public would be snapping them up, unsubsidized. And if government guesses wrong about whom to subsidize and by how much, it diverts scarce capital into unproductive investments. Repealing the 3% Public Purpose Tax would be a good place to start, since the primary purpose of the tax is to subsidize investments otherwise rejected by the market.

Allow land-use changes that would lower methane emissions. Methane is 21 times more potent than CO2 as a GHG, so it should receive special scrutiny. The largest source of methane in Oregon (52%) is “enteric fermentation” and “manure management” at dairy farms and cattle ranches. While the legislature should not discourage or punish agricultural operations, we should amend state land-use laws to allow dairy farmers and cattle ranchers to change land uses if they so desire. Virtually any other use will have lower methane emissions (or probably none), so this is a high-leverage policy.

Address the threat of catastrophic forest fires on public lands in Oregon. Forest fires are a large and growing source of CO2 emissions. Emissions per acre of timberland can be reduced by approximately 67% through proper thinning of overgrown stands. The Oregon legislature should demand more active management on all public forestlands in Oregon, especially those owned by the federal government. Proper thinning and biomass utilization can create market opportunities for electricity generation, thereby supporting several state policy goals.

Allow the market to continue responding to its natural incentive to minimize costs, including energy. The amount of energy per dollar of GDP has declined steadily for 50 years. This trend can be accelerated through technological research and deployment. The legislature can help by eliminating corporate income taxes and keeping capital gains taxes low. Investment in better technology is the only real sustainable path to GHG reductions.

Editor’s note: Tables and footnotes accompanying this testimony are available on Cascade’s website here.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market think tank.

Share
  • David

    John Charles, it is absurd and completely inaccurate to claim that the American economy has been “decarbonizing” over the last 50 years. During that period, our carbon emission have increased substantially.

    Don’t give me any of this carbon intensity BS. The atmosphere and the planet cares not a wit for carbon intensity, but for the absolute amount of carbon emitted into that air.

    Please try to be at least a bit serious. Otherwise, tell me our carbon emissions in 1950. Then tell me our C emissions for 2005. Compare.

    • John Charles

      David,

      Of course the US economy has been de-carbonizing. Look it up. It takes less than half the energy per unit of economic output today as it took in 1970. You can’t get to absolute reductions without reducing carbon intensity first. If you go back in time, you’ll see that air pollution intensity of the economy was falling steadily from about 1930-1970, but total emissions kept rising due to population growth and GDP growth. But finally the falling intensity overtook those two factors, and aggregate emissions began falling — and they’ve been falling ever since.

      Your’re right that the earth doesn’t care about carbon intensity. It doesn’t care about CO2 either. The earth will survive regadless of what we do. We have to decie whether carbon reduction is a worthy goal based on our understanding of how climate works and likely effects on things that only we care about. And we have to decide if CO2 reductions are worth the cost. Personally, I don’t see a lot of benefits, so I’m not willing to bear much cost.

      John

  • jim karlocik

    *Dean:* John Charles, it is absurd and completely inaccurate to claim that the American economy has been “decarbonizing” over the last 50 years.
    *JK:* You are wrong as usual. Can you not understand the concept of a rate: per dollar of GDP or per capita?

    *Dean:* During that period, our carbon emission have increased substantially.
    *JK:* Only because of increased population. The CO2 per person has been going down.

    *Dean:* Don’t give me any of this carbon intensity BS. The atmosphere and the planet cares not a wit for carbon intensity, but for the absolute amount of carbon emitted into that air.
    *JK:* An don’t you give us that CO2 B.S.:
    I am still waiting for you to tell us what is the most significant greenhouse gas?
    What percent of warming is due to that gas?
    What percent of waning is due to CO2?
    What percent of CO2 emission is man caused?

    And if your goal really was to reduce CO2, they tell us about how you propose to reduce CO2 from India and China? Or are you just proposing returning the USA to a 1800s style life of poverty while the Indians and Chinese prosper?

    *Dean:* Please try to be at least a bit serious. Otherwise, tell me our carbon emissions in 1950. Then tell me our C emissions for 2005. Compare.
    *JK:* Why don’t you try to learn something yourself (after all you claim to be a science writer). You can start with telling us much warming would be expected by 2100 with business as usual and how much if man STOPPED ALL CO2 emission.

    *JK:* You might also comment on the fact that recently, once again, they added a factor to their climate models and got less warming projected. In fact they now predict about a 10 year COOLING PERIOD. Next they might properly account for the loss of stations in rural areas, the heat island effect and improperly placed stations.

    *JK:* Oh, by the way, why don’t you disclose how much money Al Gore will make from trading carbon credits? And how much Jim Hansen got from the Heinz foundation (John Kerry’s wife)

    Thanks
    JK

  • wookie

    State land use law explicitly allows a dairy farmer or cattle operation to switch to another agricultural use that produces little or no methane. What John Charles is really calling for here seems to be allowing agricultural operations to convert their land to residential or commercial uses, which would (one supposes) not produce methane. Let’s forget, of course, about the fact that a residential development on farmland would lead to an awful lot of driving, which produces CO2. But of course that is not a pollutant, and so it is not relevant, eh?

  • wookie

    JK,

    Either you accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change or you don’t. If you don’t, the CO2 emissions of China (with a GDP per capita about 10% of ours, by the way) and India (even less per capita) are irrelevant. And if you do, then total carbon emissions to the atmosphere by our species definitely DO matter. Can’t have it both ways.

    Put a different way, anyone who thinks that liberating billions of tons of fossil carbon from hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis to the atmosphere in less than a hundred years can have NO significant impact on the global climate system has to work awful hard to maintain that particular delusion. But if it feels good to work that hard, enjoy it, I say!

    • dean

      Jim…thanks for including me as the straight man in your conversation with yourself. But no thanks. Really. That was DAVID responding to John Charles, not moi.

      By the way…I am not a “science writer” and make no claims to be one. I do write about natural resource management, ecological restoration, and related topics. Nothing at all to do with climate except as a citizen.

    • jim karlocik

      *Wookie: (who appears to be hiding its real identity):* Put a different way, anyone who thinks that liberating billions of tons of fossil carbon from hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis to the atmosphere in less than a hundred years can have NO significant impact on the global climate system has to work awful hard to maintain that particular delusion.
      *JK:* Are you taking about undoing the natural, runaway, carbon sequestration that will, if left unchecked, starve all plant life on earth?

      *Wookie: (who appears to be hiding its real identity):* But if it feels good to work that hard, enjoy it, I say!
      *JK:* Do you have any evidence that CO2 causes significant global warming at today’s CO2 levels? I sure can’t seem to find any. Please cite the peer reviewed paper that includes empirical proof.

      Thanks
      JK

  • dean

    What the heck…let me try and parse John’s proposals.

    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.

    8) 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.

    • jim karlocik

      By the way…I am not a “science writer” and make no claims to be one.

      *JK:* Sorry, Dean, I got you confused with another of Al Gore’s true believers.

      Thanks
      JK

    • jim karlocik

      *Dean:* wasteful liberals solve the problem as inefficiently but inclusively as possible.
      *JK:* Ok, which green proposals *actually work*?

      The only ones that I know of are nuke and hydro. Maybe wind, but there are serious system questions to be resolved.
      PS: “work” includes that which the greens love to ignore: cost.

      Thanks
      JK

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >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.

      You are a little behind the times on this one. Kyoto is now a logical irrelevancy as all the recent stories I have seen show that more than a few signatories are expected to exceed its limits. This is especially funny considering their high and mighty attitude towards the US, which is actually doing better on emissions than some signatories. Go figure!

      The interesting thing is the remedy, as it foreshadows what is in store here, and of course the true purpose of AGW, expansion of government power over the citizenry.

      Kyoto is enforced through fines. Those fine are, for the most part, paid by the citizenry of a country, not the carbon emitters themselves.

      In a way this is a good thing, it will make the citizenry more directly aware of the financial impact of their leaders foolishness in signing such things as Kyoto. The question is, which will lead to impoverishment, and thus reconsideration of Kyoto first? If fines were paid by the emitters within a country, then of course those businesses would leave the country immediately and move to a non signatory of Kyoto. Again this would lead to impoverishment of the citizenry, but it would be less direct, so possibly correction of Kyoto would come later.

      At any rate, the point is there is light at the end of the tunnel for this sort of thing. The public in many of these country is furious over the new taxes. My only hope is that I really have the whole HDTV thing really worked out when the rioting starts over there.

      >Either get serious about free(er) market solutions to greenhouse gasses or step aside

      Could we really do that? I mean as a country, could we really just all step aside on this issue and move on? Id love that. The entire premise of this thing, that there is one perfect temperature, that has been divined by the AGW clergy as just somehow happening to be the temperature right now, is absolutely inane.

    • Sid Leiken

      Dean

      I am going to have to stop you here for a moment. I used to own a small chain of dry cleaners that became one of the first in the US to start converting to wet cleaning. This was in the mid 1990’s. As our industry began talking with members of congress to look into creating tax incentives for small business owners, democrats checked out on us. In fact one of the real leaders on this was Congressman Joe Barton from Texas. I even took the time to invite congressional staff to my business and they just didn’t have an interest to see what I was doing to help protect my employees and protect the environment. I would tell them when I first started I had to import my specialized soaps and sizings from Europe. The major solvent used in dry cleaning, “perc” has a challenge of groundwater contamination and is a greenhouse gas when emitted into the atmosphere. What I have found is democrats seem to want to come to the party when someone of celebrity status, which is what Al Gore has now become, gets their attention instead of listening to those of us who have made personal investments to make a difference.

      Another major issue when dealing with protecting the environment is the generational gap. I mean Lieberaman and Warner putting together an initiative in the senate to deal with “climate change.” That in itself does not pass the laugh test. I am 46, which means folks my age and younger who are business owners, put protecting the environment as an everyday part of doing business.

      In Oregon it was the leadership of moderate/conservative democrat Lee Beyer and several republicans who were willing to sit down with us to put together some incentives. The DEQ reacted positively, as they invited myself and several others to sit on a Pollution Prevention Tax Credit Sub-Committee to write a good incentive program for small businesses wanting to make a difference. All of our recommendations were left in the program and it worked.

      By the way, that is what we used to call it, pollution prevention, but it wasn’t sexy enough so the term global warming and now climate change are the buzz words. The bottom line is government can create good tax policy to allow business to create alternative technology to create profits and jobs. Punishment with higher taxes on “windfall profits” only defeats the eventual positives business can create. I know this on a personal level.

  • Bob Clark

    I think folks should be exempted from the public purpose tax if they replace an inefficient automobile with a high efficiency vehicle. Furthermore, the some $17 million dollars invested in “pet” renewable projects by the Energy Trust per year, using public purpose tax funds, should be redirected towards improving government fleet fuel efficiencies. I’ve calculated the actual energy gain over Energy Trust renewables could be on the order of four fold. The renewable projects added by the Energy Trust are small “potatoes”, not even totaling a single average Megawatt (aMw) in most years versus total state electric energy demand of some 8000 to 9000 aMw or more.

    The Energy Trust renewable power projects have a levelized cost of more than 70 cents per Kwh versus new Nuclear plants in the 20 to 30 cent range and new natural gas power plants in the 10 to 20 cent range, even at today’s historical record natural gas prices. The technical lead of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, depended upon by the Oregon Department of Energy and Oregon Public Utility Commission, called solar power in an Oregonian article, tantamount to “window dressing.”

    Speeding the replacement of automobiles with new ones sporting plug-in capabilities would also dovetail with federally subsidized large wind projects in that plug-ins could charge when the wind is blowing and electricity demand otherwise low. In other words, plug-ins offer to cut gasoline consumption by 50% or more and at the same time act as a storage bank for wind power which is naturally an intermitent power source.

    P.S I heard the public purpose tax for PGE customers is set to rise from 3 percent to 4 percent this June.

  • jim karlocik

    *Al Gore making money hand over fist*
    *1.* Generations Mutual fund: Hon. Al Gore is Chairman. see: generationim.com/about/team.html

    *2.* After “a conversation that’s gone on for a year and a half,” according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley’s preeminent venture firm.
    See: money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/

    *3.* Al Gore appears to get $100,000 for speaking. See this for one example (price is on page 5):
    thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html

    *4.* The investment vehicle headed by Al Gore has closed a new $683m fund . . . The fund will be focused on equity investments in small companies in four sectors: renewable energy; energy efficiency technologies; energy from biofuels and biomass; *and the carbon trading markets. *
    https://209.157.64.200/%5Ehttps://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
    https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

    *Jim Hansen making money hand over fist*
    *1.* Hansen was in Wilmington to receive a 50,000 dollar Common Wealth Award for outstanding achievement,
    The awards are provided by a trust of the late Ralph Hayes, a former director of Coca Cola and Bank of Delaware, now PNC.
    (https://www.terradaily.com/2007/080407011650.dyqm0pmz.html) (AFP) Apr 07, 2008

    *2.* NASA Goddard Scientist to Receive Heinz Award
    Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year’s recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20010305/

    *There’s big money is lying to t he public.*
    *I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is * Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.

    BTW, a British court found a bunch of inaccuracies in Gore’s film (“over-representation of factual presentations”?)
    See: newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

    *Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time* Jim Hansen (the NASA guy that keeps an official temperature record) in https://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html bold added

    Thanks
    JK

  • John Fairplay

    “Put a different way, anyone who thinks that liberating billions of tons of fossil carbon from hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis to the atmosphere in less than a hundred years can have NO significant impact on the global climate system has to work awful hard to maintain that particular delusion.”

    It’s not hard work. There’s no evidence of any significant impact – warming of less than one degree over that 100 years – and no proven causal link between Co2 and even that small amount of warming. In fact, if human liberation of Co2 was causing warming, the world average temperature ought to be increasing by a measurable amount each and every year. Instead it bounces around like…a natural system responding to a wide variety of inputs. In the last decade Co2 is up – but world average temperatures are way down.

    Predicating misery for billions of humans based on zero evidence is probably not a good idea.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Predicating misery for billions of humans based on zero evidence is probably not a good idea.

      Exactly right. It would be nice if the AGW crowd would put their money where their mouth is. They seek to fine and tax people into oblivion over this issue. I think they should be required to stake an equal sum to reimburse people for this foolishness if they are wrong.

      There is one area though where the ACLU wing of the left has been vindicated entirely – Separation of church and state is a really good thing.

      • dean

        Rupert…no…not “oblivion.” Remind yourself that we (the AGW crowd) are people also, and are not in a hurry to bring on oblivion. What we want to do is tax and regulate in ways that aim the direction of society away from oblivian, or at least extreme discomfort. Since you have me pegged as part of the great AGW conspiriacy, I can assure you that we have no interest in using AGW to “expand government power over the citizenry,” which, as it turns out, we happen to be citizens as well.

        John…there is lots of evidence of mounting impacts. And there is a lag time between carbon in the atmosphere and how long it takes the earth to warm up. Its not like a switch that gets turned on or off, since carbon has a 40-100 year life span in the air.

        The link has indeed been “proven” sufficiently to satisfy nearly every reputable climate scientist AND nearly every nation in the world. Year to year temperatures will still go up and down. The long term trend line is well established in the climate record that NASA and others have tracked. Average temperatures are not “down’ over the last decade. The last decade has had the highest average temperatures of any decade over the past 100 plus years.

        Sid…I appreciate your experience and leadership within your industry. Thanks for what you are doing. Just to be clear, I did not advocate a “windfall profits tax.” I am saying that if CO2 is a pollutant (and the evidence is that it is,) then the only known ways to reduce its discharge are to tax it or regulate (limit) it. This is the economic theory of externalities. Otherwise individuals adn industries can “free ride’ on the rest of us by discharging CO2 as much as they want with no direct cost to them.

        Rupert again….I don;t know where you get your data. The Kyoto treaty did not go into effect until 2005, when Russia signed on. There are 180 signatories. Many nations are allowed to INCREASE their greenhouse gas emmissions above 1990 levels, while others are supposed to reduce them, including the US. Why? Because many nations are not yet industrialized and emit very low levels either in absolute or per capita terms. So to state that the US is “doing better on emissions than some of the signatories” is meaningless. We are doing worse than every other industrialized nation except Canada.

        Western Europe is now at or slightly below its 1990 CO2 emission levels. Eastern Europe is way below its 1990 levels. Third world nations have higher emissions (especially India and China). Australia, Japan and other Pacific Ocean States are at a fairly flat level. Emissions in the US and Canada are still climbing.

        Yes…we could just “step aside.” That is exactly what we have done under the Bush Administration. Global leadership this is not.

        JK…solar, wind, and geothermal all “work,” as does driving smaller, more fuel efficient cars, riding bikes, taking transit, and insulating buildings. No alternative solution is as cheap, as easy, or as consistant as oil for transport, coal for electricity, and natural gas for heating, hence the need for new public policy to encourage the formers and discourage the latters.

        You like nukes, but without masive public subsidies and insurance underwrighting there would be no nuclear electricity generating.

        • jim karlocik

          *dean:* Rupert…no…not “oblivion.” Remind yourself that we (the AGW crowd) are people also, and are not in a hurry to bring on oblivion.
          *JK:* You sure couldda fooled me. Most of your proposals will hurt people, especially low income people.

          *dean:* What we want to do is tax and regulate in ways that aim the direction of society away from oblivian, or at least extreme discomfort.
          *JK:* Tell us how this will affect low income people as you raise their taxes and force them to choose between getting to work and feeding their kids. This is the detail all of Gore’s zombies refuse to discuss.

          Shouldn’t you have better evidence than the rantings of snake oil salesmen like Al Gore and Jim Hansen and their play station climate models that don’t even include all known variables and can only match historical data by careful tweaking.

          Even more laughable is that two of the modelers only recently decided to include know natural variability and got no warming for ten years. Just think what they will show when they get around to accurately modeling the upper atmosphere, cosmic radiation and deep oceans. See Science, 317, 796 and Nature 453,84, doi:10.1038

          Actually I can give you a pretty good idea: probably a few dozen years of cooling.

          But you don’t care because you have Al Gore’s religion. Believe what you want, but don’t try to shove it down my throat, or use it as an excuse to hurt people.

          *dean:* John…there is lots of evidence of mounting impacts. And there is a lag time between carbon in the atmosphere and how long it takes the earth to warm up. Its not like a switch that gets turned on or off, since carbon has a 40-100 year life span in the air.
          *JK:* Then prove it a few with peer reviewed journal citations, not just your vague claims from irresponsible green idiots like the Sierra club, Greenpeace and Wilderness Society.

          *dean:* The link has indeed been “proven” sufficiently to satisfy nearly every reputable climate scientist AND nearly every nation in the world.
          *JK:* Then prove it a few with peer reviewed journal citations, not just your vague claims from some irresponsible green idiot like the Sierra club garbage.

          *dean:* Year to year temperatures will still go up and down. The long term trend line is well established in the climate record that NASA and others have tracked. Average temperatures are not “down’ over the last decade.
          *JK:* See USHCN, maintianed by Gore advisor Jim Hansen and considered the most reliable in the world. It still shows 1998 tied with 1934 as the warmest year since the little ice age.

          No later year has matched or exceeded 1998,* therefore, the USHCN shows cooling since that date. That is 10 years of cooling*, yet you are still paranoid.

          Further, most of the major versions of earth’s climate history now show cooling. And is large amounts compared to the many years of warming.

          The latest models are predicting 10 years of additional cooling. That will be a total of 20 years cooling. 20 years is long enough to call it CLIMATE, not weather.

          *dean:* I am saying that if CO2 is a pollutant (and the evidence is that it is,) then the only known ways to reduce its discharge are to tax it or regulate (limit) it.
          *JK:* Bull shat – CO2 is plant food. Necessary for life on earth. To call it a pollutant shows your ignorance of basic science and acceptance of the bull shat from the green fools (as opposed to genuine conservationests.)

          *dean:* No alternative solution is as cheap, as easy, or as consistant as oil for transport, coal for electricity, and natural gas for heating,
          *JK:* Thanks for *verifying that alternatives are not ready for prime time because they cost too much and are unreliable.* Changing to then will only hurt people be raising costs and give us third world power system reliability. Why do you constantly advocate hurting people.

          *dean:* hence the need for new public policy to encourage the formers and discourage the latters.
          *JK:* Lets call it what it is: take money from the poor and give it to hucksters that claim to solve the non-problem that they are selling. Just write you check to chief huckster, Al Gore at his Generations mutual fund or his Silicon valley venture capital fund.

          *dean:* You like nukes, but without masive public subsidies and insurance underwrighting there would be no nuclear electricity generating.
          *JK:* Bull Shat. They are cheaper than current power sources except for the Luddites and their endless paranoid law suits.

          Thanks
          JK

          • dean

            Jim…I’ll limit myself to one point. You say I want to “hurt the poor.” Interesting, because I am pretty poor myself…as in well below median income.

            If we put a $1 tax on gasloine (as an example,) and combined this with a PAYROLL TAX BREAK on say the first $25K of earnings, then the impact on the poor would be zero, yet the incentive would be there for everyone to save on fuel in whatever way one chooses to do so (taking the bus, riding a bike, driving a more efficient vehicle). Thus taxing carbon does not have to “hurt the poor.”

          • jim karlocik

            *Dean:* taking the bus
            *JK:* Again you show your ignorance of simple facts. Buses use more energy than small cars. Any rational person would discourage buses and encourage small cars.

            Thanks
            JK

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >I can assure you that we have no interest in using AGW to “expand government power over the citizenry,” which, as it turns out, we happen to be citizens as well.

          Oh puh-leeese. Your support of expanded regulation, weird cap and trade gambits and the like all involve increasing government power on a massive scale.

          >Rupert again….I don;t know where you get your data.

          The US Government, Census Bureau would be my source for the data regarding US emission as compared to Kyoto signatories. Clearly, just as I stated, we have been doing better than them.

          At any rate, here is the data:

          Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
          Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
          Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
          Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
          Generally I only site fairly widely published stories. The government report on the US emissions was pretty big news when it broke towards the end of 2007. I’m surprised you missed it as you portray yourself as someone knowledgeable on the issue.

          As for the point regarding the penalties assessed on European countries that are not meeting their goals, try a Google search. You will find Spain and Italy, among others, are looking at massive penalties which are for the most part due to be paid by the citizenry.

          Once again, I have backed up what I am saying. So once again, its time to pick a Dean strategy for when the point is lost.

          Maybe its time to try a diversion? Perhaps switch a word around or two? Or then again, there is always Iraq.

          >So to state that the US is “doing better on emissions than some of the signatories” is meaningless. We are doing worse than every other industrialized nation except Canada.

          Hmm, how does the fact that Kyoto went into effect in 2005 affect the fact that we are doing better? Sure doesn’t seem that way to me according to the data. The US is clearly not doing worse, and the data clearly show my statement is far from meaningless. I would highly suggest you look at the news coverage regarding this issue as you not being aware of the tax issues facing Europeans, or the emissions data for recent years is out of date.

          • dean

            Well…as I pointed out but you conveniently ignored. “Doing better” is misleading at best. Doing better than who? Most of the signatories of Kyoto have no obligation to reduce emissions. Those that committed to reductions are for the most part doing their part. We are not. You would appear to be the one doing the diverting here.

            Kyoto being delayed until 05 means that under the treaty, no one had to start doing anything until that point. Yet in spite of that nearly all the European nations got busy and have met or exceeded their obligations. Comparing the US to Botswana is not helpful, except as a diversion.

            Government already has the power to regulate pollutants. Using that power is not an expansion. It is an implementation.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >You would appear to be the one doing the diverting here.

            You said you don’t know where I get my data. I told you. I even cited some of it. And now you claim that is diversion?

            Are you aware of what the word diversion means?

            At any rate, now you claim I am still wrong because the signatories who do have to reduce their emissions are doing so, at least according to to you. You claim this, again without citing any data whatsoever, and the data do not in fact agree at all with what you are saying such as here:

            >Yet in spite of that nearly all the European nations got busy and have met or exceeded their obligations.

            This is completely untrue. It is totally unsupported by either past data, the data I cited, or current events.

            I let it pass the first time, the fact that you have a tendency to say people are wrong in their facts with none of your own. In this case though, its logically ridiculous as fines would not now be facing a fair number of Kyoto signatories, if they were doing their part.

            This is simply another case of “Blame The US First” proven wrong, yet again. There will always be some US liberals out their who feel some sort of moral superiority over their fellow citizens by feeling guilty about their country. I frankly think its a phenomenon that should be studied as I find it really interesting. I guess the closest thing I could think of to compare to it is maybe some sort of self righteous religious figure thumping a bible on a corner. Its sort of similar in that he feels superior because he acknowledges the sin within him, while others have not. That’s still not quite it though.

  • David

    > JK: The CO2 per person has been going down.

    Wrong again, Jim. See https://tinyurl.com/yzh39x

    Or see https://tisiphone.mit.edu/RePEc/mee/wpaper/2003-002.pdf, Fig. 3.

    • jim karlocik

      *David:* Or see https://tisiphone.mit.edu/RePEc/mee/wpaper/2003-002.pdf, Fig. 3.
      *JK:* Good chart – it shows a per capita CO2 peak in the mid 1970s and a clear down trend since.

      BTW, your wikipedia has taken money from a source close to Al Gore / Kleiner Perkins and therefore is as tainted as if they were a warming realist taking money from Exxon.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David

        Jim, of course Figure 3 doesn’t show a decline in per-capita CO2 emissions. It shows a big increase up until 2000 (logarithmic graphs smooth down the difference). The Wikipedia data shows that even since 1990, per capita CO2 emissions have been increasing in the US, contrary to your claim.

        Present your own data that proves your point, or shut up.

        • jim karlocik

          *David:* Jim, of course Figure 3 doesn’t show a decline in per-capita CO2 emissions.
          *JK:* You are going to have to learn how to read a graph:
          1. there is a peak in the 1970s.
          2. Every year since then is less.
          3. Therefore we are on a downtrend since the 1970s

          *David:* It shows a big increase up until 2000 (logarithmic graphs smooth down the difference).
          *JK:*
          1. The increase is only until the 1970s, everything since, including 2000, is less.
          2. logarithmic graphs DO NOT smooth down the difference. Smoothing is done by various filters. Logarithmic graphs only expand or compress the amplitude to more accurately represent percentage changes.

          *David:* The Wikipedia data shows that even since 1990, per capita CO2 emissions have been increasing in the US, contrary to your claim.
          *JK:* Wikipedia has taken $500,000 from a source linked to Al Gore. I has no more credibility than a skeptic that has gotten $500,000 from Exxon.

          *David:* Present your own data that proves your point, or shut up.
          *JK:* Why should I when you data proves my point so nicely.

          I notice that this request for me to shut up *left out the F word* that you frequently used in your incessant private email to me.

          Be sure to see the COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE paper I mentioned in another post.

          Thanks
          JK

  • jim karlocik

    *Hey David & Dean:*
    *Its not the CO2, its the galaxy etc:*

    Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic
    ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it
    difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations. But is the GCR flux directly affecting the climate
    or merely acting as a proxy for variations of the solar irradiance or a spectral component such as UV?
    Here, there is some palaeoclimatic evidence for associations of the climate with geomagnetic and galactic
    modulations of the GCR flux, which, if confirmed, point to a direct GCR-climate forcing. Moreover,
    numerous studies have reported meteorological responses to short-term changes of cosmic rays or the
    global electrical current, which are unambiguously associated with ionising particle radiation.

    COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE, Jasper Kirkby, Surveys in Geophysics 28, 333–375, doi: 10.1007/s10712-008-9030-6 (2007).

  • David

    Jim, I am looking at Figure 3. Remember, this is a logarithmic graph. It is not at all clear this is a peak.

    Q: what was the US per-capita CO2 emissions for 1970?

    • jim karlocik

      *David:* Jim, I am looking at Figure 3. Remember, this is a logarithmic graph. It is not at all clear this is a peak.
      *JK:* There is a clear peak at about 1973 on the data line (not the trend line.)

      *David :* Q: what was the US per-capita CO2 emissions for 1970?
      *JK:* Per your chart: less than 1973 and greater than 2000.

      But why are you so hung up on CO2?
      1. Tell us what is the most significant warming gas.
      2. What percent of warming is due to that gas?
      3. What percent of waning is due to CO2?
      4. What % of total CO2 is man caused.
      5. Tell us how much the earth would warm with NO man emitted CO2 and how much it would warm if man did nothing.
      6. Tell us how CO2 increase will affect agriculture.
      7. Tell us how warming will affects agriculture.

      I’m still waiting for you to show me a peer-reviewed paper that proves CO2 increases FROM THE PRESENT level causes significant warming. Come on David, show it to me with a proper citation. The IPCC does not count as it is merely a review of papers and mostly overseen by political hacks.

      BTW2: You are following admitted liars:
      *Al Gore:* *I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,*
      (From Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added)
      *Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time* Jim Hansen (the NASA guy that keeps an official temperature record) in https://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html bold added

      Thanks
      JK

      • dean

        Jim…with due respect, neither of the 2 quotes you keep quoting reveals either Gore or Hansen as “liars.” Neither of them advocates an “untruthful” statement. Projections about how much the earth will warm and how fast vary depending on input scenarios. Stressing the high end of the projections is not “lying,” particularly if one acknowledges these as worst cases, as both Gore and Hansen do.

  • jim karlocik

    *Hey David!* *Hey Dean!*

    I’m still waiting for you to tell us:

    1. What is the most significant global warming gas?
    2. What percent of global warming is due to that gas?
    3. What percent of global warming is due to CO2?
    4. What % of total CO2 is man caused?
    5. Tell us how much additional warming will result if CO2 were to double from current levels.
    6. Tell us how much the earth would warm with NO man emitted CO2 and how much it would warm if man did nothing.
    7. Tell us how CO2 increase will affect agriculture.
    8. Tell us how warming will affect agriculture.

    Oh, and I’m still waiting for that peer reviewed paper that proves CO2 can cause significant warming from today’s levels.

    Thanks
    JK

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Me ME

      Pick Me!

      Um, lemme see, can I go off the cuff here, just from memory?

      >1. What is the most significant global warming gas?

      Water Vapor? Like in clouds?

      >2. What percent of global warming is due to that gas?

      A whole bunch would be my guess, as cloud formation which has recently been linked to cosmic rays seems to affect temperature a whole bunch. This is one of the many peer reviewed studies which doesn’t exist.

      >3. What percent of global warming is due to CO2?

      Now a whole bunch.

      >4. What % of total CO2 is man caused?

      Compared to production of CO2 produced in the natural world? Like close to zero in terms of statistical significance.

      >5. Tell us how much additional warming will result if CO2 were to double from current levels.

      You mean real life or playing with computer models?

      >6. Tell us how much the earth would warm with NO man emitted CO2 and how much it would warm if man did nothing.

      I think man doing nothing and man doing full on what the AGW’s want alters results by something like half a degree in 100 years at best. That is irrelevant to them though because right now, in this, their lifetimes, is the bestest westest temperature there ever was. and they know this because they say so dammit.

      >7. Tell us how CO2 increase will affect agriculture.

      Somehow I have a hard time believing that mans small contribution to CO2 levels does much with agriculture. I do seem to remember back in the 70’s there was some sort of way of growing pot better when CO2 was introduced so maybe I am wrong on this one.

      >8. Tell us how warming will affect agriculture.

      Probably make it easier to grow things. Now that the above question got me thinking about it, I think pot grows better where its warm. Ooops, sorry, hemp grows better where its warm. Maybe if we pointed this out to the left, they would change their tune?

  • Anonymous

    dean.
    You’re a piece of work. Even when an IPCC scientist goes out and lies and contradicts his own IPCC reports in his claiming AGW will lead to more and more severe hurricnes you don’t see that as lying.

    This is the sort of standards you have which allow you to repreatedly lie yourself. On Damascus, land use, trasnportation, global warming and education you are a left wing nut in thje form of Sam Adams and Rex Burholder.
    Somehow you got assigned to hang out here and distribute the loony agenda that promises to de-energize our country, halt progress and stiffle our standard of living.

    • dean

      I’m impressed, both Jim and Rupert, that you 2 know so much more than climate scientists. How could these otherwise smart people have overlooked water vapour? Only it turns out they didn’t. it is duly accounted for.

      Climate scientists tell us that water vapour alone accounts for 60-70% of the “greenhouse effect”. Add clouds and you can up get to 85% of the total effect. The same scientists tell us that snce water vapour molecules are very short lived in the atmosphere, they do not “force” global warming, because they don’t accumulate. Carbon molecules on the other hand, are long lived, accumulate, and ultimately raise surface temperatures by trapping heat that would otherwise leak into space. In other words, water vapour = red herring.

      Jim…models don’t “prove” anything. they predict outcomes given a set of circumstances. The curently accepted models predict a 2 degree C rise in global average temp if we can stabalize atmospheric CO2 at 450 parts per million. Of that 170 PPM would be from human contribution (fossil fuels and deforestation). A 2 deg C rise would give us the warmest planet we have had in…oh….a few million years, or way before the time of human civilization. That is an unpredictable world, but likely one with higher oceans and larger deserts. But not to worry. As Rupert points out, our grandkids can all smoke a doobie, eat twinkies made from soylent green and watch I Love Lucy reruns from the remaining high ground.

      Anonymous coward person…you wouldn’t belive how much they pay me to contribute to this site and tweak your twisted brain. I feel like I am stealing their money.

      As for Sam and Rex, since they seem to get a lot of votes…actual majorities iIhear….there must be a lot of left wing nuts out there. I am in great company.

      “De-energize” the country. I love that. “Halt progress.” Sure, why not. I hear there are lots of unoccupied caves we can all move into…together Tina.

      • jim karlock

        *dean:* I’m impressed, both Jim and Rupert, that you 2 know so much more than climate scientists.
        *JK:* And I am impressed by your ability to ignore good, solid contrary evidence and still want to hurt millions of people.

        *dean:* How could these otherwise smart people have overlooked water vapour?
        *JK:* Because they have an agenda that has nothing to do with climate. One group, like Al is set to get rich. Another is unable to function in modern society and is trying to make it go away. Another wants man to disappear entirely to save the earth. You can find all of these nuts with Google.

        *dean:* Only it turns out they didn’t. it is duly accounted for.
        *JK:* They don’t even know the correct sign for water vapor’s effect. They tend top claim it is an amplifier, but there is good evidence that it is actually a natural refrigeration mechanism, which would imply that it sets an upper limit to temperature. (Do you even know how a refrigerator works?)

        *dean:* Climate scientists tell us that water vapour alone accounts for 60-70% of the “greenhouse effect”. Add clouds and you can up get to 85% of the total effect.
        *JK:* Now we are getting somewhere: Nature not man causes up to 85% of the potential warming. That leaves only 15% due to CO2, of which a tiny amount is from man. From this tiny percentage of 15%, you believe Al’s doom and gloom. Laughable,

        *dean:* The same scientists tell us that snce water vapour molecules are very short lived in the atmosphere, they do not “force” global warming, because they don’t accumulate.
        *JK:* This is pure hogwash. If they are there, they cause whatever effect. The possibility that they cycle regularly does not matter (although cycling may have other effects – like a natural cooling effect)

        *dean:* Carbon molecules on the other hand, are long lived, accumulate, and ultimately raise surface temperatures by trapping heat that would otherwise leak into space. In other words, water vapour = red herring.
        *JK:* Again, what does life span have to do with it? If they are present, whatever effect they have is also present. A molecule does not just hang around for a period of time then become active (or inactive).

        *dean:* Jim…models don’t “prove” anything. they predict outcomes given a set of circumstances. The curently accepted models predict a 2 degree C rise in global average temp if we can stabalize atmospheric CO2 at 450 parts per million. Of that 170 PPM would be from human contribution (fossil fuels and deforestation).
        *JK:* You are so fixated on crappy models! How can you consider them credible when, just recently, two were modified to include well known conditions *that they had been intentional ignoring*. This modification *reversed the models and they now show cooling for the next ten years*. This brings up the question as to how many other factors were left out? You are following fools and liars. How can you possible advocate measures that will hurt millions of people on such crappy “evidence”. When I see people continuing to push an agenda when they have no real data, I have to ask: what is your real agenda? Why do you want to see people get hurt?

        *dean:* A 2 deg C rise would give us the warmest planet we have had in…oh….a few million years, or way before the time of human civilization.
        *JK:* Except the several more recent warming periods. We simply do not know how warm they were. But you can get a hint form the Vikings farming in Greenland.

        *dean:* there must be a lot of left wing nuts out there. I am in great company.
        *JK: * About the only thing you got right.

        *dean:* “De-energize” the country. I love that. “Halt progress.” Sure, why not. I hear there are lots of unoccupied caves we can all move into…together Tina.
        *JK:* That is exactly where you are leading us. Too bad you can’t understand that.

        Thanks
        JK

      • Anonymous

        *Dean:* I’m impressed, both Jim and Rupert, that you 2 know so much more than climate scientists.
        *JK:* More scientists reject the IPCC extremest crap than accept it:

        31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda
        ‘Mr. Gore’s movie has claims no informed expert endorses’
        Posted: May 19, 2008
        8:51 pm Eastern

        By Bob Unruh
        © 2008 WorldNetDaily

        More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.

        *”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “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.”* (bold added)

        worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    *JK:* Note to warming chicken littles:

    Here is what is in store for us if profiteers like Al Gore, and Jim Hansen, have their way:

    * Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of $631 billion to $669 billion per year in 2030
    * Employment losses of 3 million to 4 million jobs in 2030
    * Household income losses of $4,022 to $6,752 per year in 2030
    * Electricity price increases of 101% to 129% by 2030
    * Gasoline price increases (per gallon) of 77% to 145% by 2030

    data from: accf.org/pdf/NAM/NAM-ACCF-PR.pdf

    That is why we need to be DAMN certain there really is a problem before we start the long march back to universal poverty.

    Thanks
    JK

  • jim karlocik

    *Here is what Dean and David are ignoring:*

    By Lawrence Solomon
    You probably haven’t heard much of Solar Cycle 24, the current cycle that our sun has entered, and I hope you don’t. If Solar Cycle 24 becomes a household term, your lifestyle could be taking a dramatic turn for the worse. That of your children and their children could fare worse still, say some scientists, because Solar Cycle 24 could mark a time of profound long-term change in the climate. As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.”

    read it all at:
    network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/30/the-deniers-our-spotless-sun.aspx

    Thanks
    JK

    • dean

      Jim…why is it you don’t trust the modeling of the climate scientists or the economists of the IPCC, but you trust the economic modeling in your citation? Costs of shifting from fossil fuels to renewables are going to be there whether we initiate things now or wait for the oil wells to get further depleted. Given oil at $135 a barrel, yet no increase in global production, we don’t have a lot of choice really. We have to adapt. We could choose to keep burning coal for some time, but generating electricity from alternative sources is if anything less daunting than finding a substitute for oil in transportation.

      On Chapman…his “cooling thesis” has already been shown to be wrong by others. First, he erred in linking the temperature drop in 2007 to sunspot cycles, when it was caused by a rapid development of a la nina.

      Second, he erred in his “sunspot” numbers and timing by a huge factor. Third, climate science has shown that there is only a very small increment of change in annual temperatures from sunspot numbers in any case. Fourth, he inferred long term climate changes from a one year temperature drop. Not good science there.

      Jim…your larger point that we should be DAMN certain there is a problem before we act is countered by its opposite. Can we be DAMN certain that global warming is not going to trigger changes in our life support system that we are not going to be able to cope with, and that THIS is what may put us on a “long march to universal poverty”?

      Its not economics versus environment. Either choice we make; to deal with the problem based on what we know now, or to keep putting it off and hope for the best, involves both economic and environmental challenges. We can never get to 100% certainty either way, but we do have to choose. Most of the world has chosen. Portland and Oregen have chosen. The US is going to choose to join the party after January 09. Deal with it.

  • jim karlock

    *dean:* Jim…why is it you don’t trust the modeling of the climate scientists or the economists of the IPCC,
    *JK:* Because their models leave out too many known factors and cannot include that which is not presently known. For instance, they only recently included natural variations, and, what do you know, we’re in for 10 years of cooling. To base world policy on such fools is, well, foolish.

    *dean:* but you trust the economic modeling in your citation?
    *JK:* I didn’t say that.

    *dean:* Costs of shifting from fossil fuels to renewables are going to be there whether we initiate things now or wait for the oil wells to get further depleted.
    *JK:* There is NO viable renewable available for the majority of our power. That is the basic flaw in your position and the reason carbon limits will kill the economy and people. You are too poorly informed to realize this.

    Nuclear is the only viable substitute for large scale use.

    Just to avoid endless back and forth:
    1. Solar electric to many times the cost of coal. Going to it will increase our electric rates by at least 400%
    2. Wind electric can be economical, but requires 100% backup. 100% back up is a non-starter.
    3. All the other proposals are at too early a stage to know. To seriously propose them at this time is as laughable as most of the stuff coming out of the scientific illiterates in the green movement.
    4. The only viable alternative to coal for electricity is Nuclear.

    *dean:* Given oil at $135 a barrel, yet no increase in global production, we don’t have a lot of choice really. We have to adapt.
    *JK:* Then there is no need for the government to get involved (they only have a long history of doing the wrong thing.)

    *dean:* On Chapman…his “cooling thesis” has already been shown to be wrong by others. First, he erred in linking the temperature drop in 2007 to sunspot cycles, when it was caused by a rapid development of a la nina.
    *JK:* And tell us what caused la nina.?
    For 10 years of cooling see:
    Science, 317, 796
    Nature 453,84, doi:10.1038
    Recent IPCC comments.

    • dean

      Jim…if you don’t believe the economic model results you cited then don’t cite it as a reason to not take action on global warming.

      If you want nuclear energy, then push for that. But don’t deny the reality of global warming just because you don’t like the available alternatives. And recognize for pete’s sake, that nuclear energy was INVENTED by government scientists, and that the entire nuclear energy industry is dependent on government for its very existence.

      You are just flat wrong on the cost of solar, which is coming down year by year as it is deployed more widely. And you are wrong on the potential of wind. Wind is blowing somewhere all the time. In an integrated system, the wind in eastern Montana could power Oregon when our gorge winds are quiet…and vica versa.

      No single source is going to replace fossil fuels. It will be a combination of sources, and increased conservation. The oil is limited. The coal is to dirty. We’ve got to move forward Jim.

      Government is involved Jim. That’s just the way it is. They get some things right and other things wrong, like other humans.

  • Pingback: cm84o5toxmwnc57vtbcdnv55v4()

  • Pingback: x4cwym845tx4f8w4fw84rffw485fedw()

  • Pingback: really cheap auto insurance()

  • Pingback: webcam porno()

  • Pingback: webcam model()

  • Pingback: Watch Live NBA Online()

  • Pingback: raspberry slim()

  • Pingback: click here to investigate()

  • Pingback: Malia Bednarowicz()

  • Pingback: league of legends t-shirt shop()

  • Pingback: Seo()

  • Pingback: amazon publishing guidelines()

  • Pingback: Brandbanglaeshop()

  • Pingback: th8 war layout()

  • Pingback: sacred 3 trainer()

  • Pingback: baby names()

  • Pingback: dr oz face serum()

  • Pingback: Click This Link()

  • Pingback: movietube()

  • Pingback: boom beach apk mod()

  • Pingback: Simple Drawing()

  • Pingback: guitar picks()

  • Pingback: bottles for drinking()

  • Pingback: in home dog sitter naples fl()

  • Pingback: australias worst bank()

  • Pingback: best mattress 2016()

  • Pingback: fly swatter for horses()

  • Pingback: crossfit()

  • Pingback: Eulalio Tirado Lizarraga()

  • Pingback: drone list()

  • Pingback: raspberry ketone()

  • Pingback: grass()

  • Pingback: he has a good point()

  • Pingback: download proxies()

  • Pingback: porno()

  • Pingback: clash royale()

  • Pingback: clash royale tool hack()

  • Pingback: dog walking naples()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: www.klimczakhairdesigners.pl()

  • Pingback: youtube.com()

  • Pingback: secularhumanism()

  • Pingback: christiantshirts.co()

  • Pingback: black hat social bots()

  • Pingback: best ways to make money online()

  • Pingback: clash of clans hack()

  • Pingback: windows replacement()

  • Pingback: top rated portable air purifier()

  • Pingback: printing vip()

  • Pingback: Removals Gloucestershire()

  • Pingback: iv therapy day spa\/salon()

  • Pingback: liquid iv ft lauderdale()

  • Pingback: iv therapy miami()

  • Pingback: orzech amerykanski()

  • Pingback: Business information()

  • Pingback: Business Products Reviews()

  • Pingback: elewacja dlh()

  • Pingback: modrzew syberyjski dlh()

  • Pingback: best uv umbrella()

  • Pingback: 诛仙3充值()

  • Pingback: https://ecology.competitionbookmarks.com/story.php?title=SPESTI-103-LV-S-breastfast-KHAPCHETA-ZA-UGOLEMYAVANE-NA-BYUSTA()

  • Pingback: Tenerife Property()

  • Pingback: tao system review()

  • Pingback: tablets()

  • Pingback: Matthew Stafford Jersey()

  • Pingback: Free Amateur Porn()

  • Pingback: Anal Porn()

  • Pingback: Shemale Porn()

  • Pingback: Mia Khalifa XXX()

  • Pingback: Bree Olson Porn()

  • Pingback: Viagra dzialanie()

  • Pingback: Uppers AR10 Rifle Kit()

  • Pingback: Detroit SEO()

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

  • Pingback: Levitra 20mg()

  • Pingback: Piece Of Heaven()

  • Pingback: Alexander()

  • Pingback: Garland Texas Chapter 7 Lawyers()

  • Pingback: Minecraft Accounts()

  • Pingback: The Lost Ways Book()

  • Pingback: Best Buy Smartphone Accessories()

  • Pingback: manifestation miracle review()

  • Pingback: opciones binarias()

  • Pingback: order food denver()

  • Pingback: Abrir empresa nos EUA()

  • Pingback: Can't stop laughing at July's best news bloopers!()

  • Pingback: Corrina()

  • Pingback: pokemon go generator codes()

  • Pingback: Bigo Live()

  • Pingback: BC Media GRP - Dicas e Informa��es!()

  • Pingback: Vancouver BC()

  • Pingback: great post to read()

  • Pingback: DraftKings NFL Picks Week 1()

  • Pingback: Detroit Lions T-Shirts()

  • Pingback: lunch talk()

  • Pingback: martial arts()

  • Pingback: istanbul escort bayan()

  • Pingback: canada goose()

  • Pingback: Gisela()

  • Pingback: Sybil()

  • Pingback: peru vacation()

  • Pingback: STIMATA()

  • Pingback: social media art-blog campaigns()

  • Pingback: buy phentermine online()

  • Pingback: shipping from Japan()

  • Pingback: Laredo Dental Care()

  • Pingback: www.google.com()

  • Pingback: sports memorabilia()

  • Pingback: permanent penis enlargement pills()

  • Pingback: afrodisiaco tesao de vaca()

  • Pingback: photo booth for events()

  • Pingback: showbox()

  • Pingback: School uniforms()

  • Pingback: Inexto and Codentify()

  • Pingback: Frontistiria Thessaloniki kentro()

  • Pingback: adam eve toys()

  • Pingback: Toko Bunga Surabaya()

  • Pingback: Acne Facial Treatments Lauderhill()

  • Pingback: Women s clothing()

  • Pingback: how to get my ex boyfriend back()

  • Pingback: loan sharks()

  • Pingback: top affiliate programs()

  • Pingback: hired()

  • Pingback: escort guide()

  • Pingback: game poker online uang asli()

  • Pingback: Outdoor projector enclosures()

  • Pingback: Escort jobs()

  • Pingback: gemstones()

  • Pingback: vòng tay thạch anh tím()

  • Pingback: Pallet Truck()

  • Pingback: Best Essay writing service()

  • Pingback: payday loans for bad credit()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم()

  • Pingback: BRANDING()

  • Pingback: 3some()

  • Pingback: classic sports memorabilia sports memorabilia()

  • Pingback: letting agents Milton Keynes()

  • Pingback: lumbago treatment()

  • Pingback: lumbago treatment()

  • Pingback: fajas reductoras()

  • Pingback: budtender school()

  • Pingback: Helene Elizabeth Wellness Center()

  • Pingback: Viagra cena()

  • Pingback: Kamagra()

  • Pingback: Premier Popcorn Flavored Popcorn()

  • Pingback: Immigration DNA testing()

  • Pingback: Spanish Translation Service()

  • Pingback: contact us()

  • Pingback: Submissive()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم()

  • Pingback: Garcinia cambogia()

  • Pingback: Garcinia cambogia()

  • Pingback: ​دانلود سریال()

  • Pingback: ugolemqvane na penisa()

  • Pingback: Montagewagen()

  • Pingback: Wholesale Review()

  • Pingback: mens fashion blog()

  • Pingback: contractors oakville()

  • Pingback: AEG Rifle Sniper Case Gun Bag()

  • Pingback: oc weekly()

  • Pingback: podlogi24.info.pl()

  • Pingback: floor24.net.pl()

  • Pingback: panele24.net.pl()

  • Pingback: best motorcycle helmet()

  • Pingback: domek24()

  • Pingback: swtor credits()

  • Pingback: MILF Porn()

  • Pingback: voirfilms the walking dead()

  • Pingback: Kelowna mortgage broker()

  • Pingback: Travel to Norway()

  • Pingback: cool motorcycle helmets()

  • Pingback: ducted heating serviceducted heating()

  • Pingback: electricians()

  • Pingback: split system installation()

  • Pingback: sprawdz oferty na samochody.io()

  • Pingback: Relógio Calvin Klein World Silver()

  • Pingback: porn()

  • Pingback: deduping()

  • Pingback: ringlead()

  • Pingback: plumber Melbourne()

  • Pingback: Medicare Supplement Plans 2018()

  • Pingback: best motorcycle helmet()

  • Pingback: DUI Lawyer scottsdale()

  • Pingback: ducted air conditioning cost()

  • Pingback: evaporative air conditioner()

  • Pingback: evaporative air conditioning()

  • Pingback: ducted cooler()

  • Pingback: recipe for curry goat()

  • Pingback: free instagram followers()

  • Pingback: affiliate marketing()

  • Pingback: Red Ball()

  • Pingback: incontri occasionali()

  • Pingback: incontri hot()

  • Pingback: tabletki na potencje()

  • Pingback: Home Health Care - Los Angeles()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال شهرزاد()

  • Pingback: Adipex Online()

  • Pingback: obat kuat()

  • Pingback: Viagra()

  • Pingback: ducted heater()

  • Pingback: click through the next web site()

  • Pingback: Medicaid dentist()

  • Pingback: Mansfield Bail Bonds()

  • Pingback: Landscape Designer()

  • Pingback: HSV Eraser review()

  • Pingback: korean tea()

  • Pingback: Rekvalifikace()

  • Pingback: RankCipher Review()

  • Pingback: Movie Download()

  • Pingback: Tabletki na potencje()

  • Pingback: Brivis ducted heater()

  • Pingback: electricians()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم نفس()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم نفس()

  • Pingback: Samsung air conditioners()

  • Pingback: Samsung()

  • Pingback: Fujitsu air conditioning()

  • Pingback: moon rocks()

  • Pingback: Novelty gifts()

  • Pingback: teak wood dining set()

  • Pingback: property singapore()

  • Pingback: Gemstone Necklace()

  • Pingback: Montagewagen()

  • Pingback: animeindo id()

  • Pingback: MILF Ava Addams Cheating In The Shower()

  • Pingback: ducted heating Melbourne()

  • Pingback: Pickering()

  • Pingback: Pressure Cleaning services Melbourne()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم سلام بمبئی()

  • Pingback: Fertilizer()

  • Pingback: Medigap Plans 2018()

  • Pingback: ducted heating()

  • Pingback: Gilangp()

  • Pingback: powertochoose()

  • Pingback: energy brokers()

  • Pingback: air conditioning installation()

  • Pingback: central heating()

  • Pingback: wedding flowers table()

  • Pingback: Online doctor chat()

  • Pingback: berita hari ini()

  • Pingback: motorcycle helmet()

  • Pingback: cool motorcycle helmets()

  • Pingback: telescope price()

  • Pingback: simone e simaria loka()

  • Pingback: Posicionamiento WEB Granada()

  • Pingback: Medicare Supplemental Insurance 2018()

  • Pingback: flipkart sale()

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

  • Pingback: half girlfriend()

  • Pingback: situs judi online()

  • Pingback: se mere her()

  • Pingback: download lagu mp3 gratis()

  • Pingback: katte ormekur()

  • Pingback: sex chat()

  • Pingback: https://motuandpatlugames.in()

  • Pingback: university()

  • Pingback: Engagement ring stores in Houston()

  • Pingback: Engagement ring stores in The Woodlands()

  • Pingback: cannabis dispensary oakland()

  • Pingback: choose a designer()

  • Pingback: custom printed boxes()

  • Pingback: Custom Boxes()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم سلام بمبئی()

  • Pingback: unsecured personal loan()

  • Pingback: mens orthopedic sandals()

  • Pingback: orthopedic sandals()

  • Pingback: sexy pics()

  • Pingback: UPVC Double Glazed Windows()

  • Pingback: RV Breakdown()

  • Pingback: Mobile Trailer Repair()

  • Pingback: Fidget Toy Wholesale USA()

  • Pingback: UPVC Double Glazed Windows()

  • Pingback: billig motionscykel()

  • Pingback: cheap air conditioner()

  • Pingback: gay porn()

  • Pingback: https://www.3dartistonline.com/user/jonalbasser()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: Continued()

  • Pingback: แผ่นฟอกฟันขาว()

  • Pingback: charter bus service()

  • Pingback: Registro Marca()

  • Pingback: market entry()

  • Pingback: Intro youtube()

  • Pingback: daily vlogs()

  • Pingback: balloon decoration for birthday party singapore()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: Administrative Assistant()

  • Pingback: 1826 sovereign()

  • Pingback: vip escort paris()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم گیتا()

  • Pingback: snorker om natten()

  • Pingback: Best mobiles under 10000()

  • Pingback: Best mobiles under 10000()

  • Pingback: situs judi poker online terpercaya()

  • Pingback: دانلود برنامه گاراژ 888()

  • Pingback: Lavender Essential Oil()

  • Pingback: storage coffee tables()

  • Pingback: bonus casino()

  • Pingback: Wholesale Essential oils()

  • Pingback: Hard core sex()

  • Pingback: online casino real money()

  • Pingback: Learning Japanese Videos()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: Learning Chinese videos()

  • Pingback: قیمت پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: sensory toy()

  • Pingback: running shoelaces()

  • Pingback: no tie shoelaces for kids()

  • Pingback: find out here now()

  • Pingback: seo pricing packages()

  • Pingback: https://www.vectroave.com/2011/04/abbey-lee-kershaw-atelier-versace-ss-11()

  • Pingback: فروش پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: multi vendor ecommerce platform india()

  • Pingback: فروش درب پنجره یو پی وی سی()

  • Pingback: desentupimento fossas()

  • Pingback: multi vendor ecommerce platform()

  • Pingback: beach outfit()

  • Pingback: amiclubwear reviews()

  • Pingback: دانلود موزیک()

  • Pingback: kids party planner singapore()

  • Pingback: localiser un portable()

  • Pingback: Sporting Goods Store in Texas()

  • Pingback: box dvd sets()

  • Pingback: recycle computers()

  • Pingback: helbred katten()

  • Pingback: international bitcoin transfer()

  • Pingback: پنجره دو سه جداره()

  • Pingback: stainless steel appliance cleaner()

  • Pingback: dipose of computer equipment()

  • Pingback: Synthetic Bunker Liner Installation()

  • Pingback: im Internet Geld verdienen()

  • Pingback: frases de motivadoras()

  • Pingback: Medigap Plans 2018()

  • Pingback: best gtx 1080()

  • Pingback: rx apoteket()

  • Pingback: phwiki()

  • Pingback: Evolution of Video Game()

  • Pingback: motu patlu games()

  • Pingback: organic beeswax pellets()

  • Pingback: antique emerald ring()

  • Pingback: Photo Recovery()

  • Pingback: دانلود آهنگ()

  • Pingback: house for sale in selangor below 500k()

  • Pingback: Bumiputera Properties for Sale()

  • Pingback: سئو()

  • Pingback: SEO Website()

  • Pingback: led display on rent mumbai()

  • Pingback: Tampa Digital Marketing()

  • Pingback: https://storify.com/mikerwilson()

  • Pingback: industrial warehousing()

  • Pingback: shoutmix alternative()

  • Pingback: contact numbers for sky()

  • Pingback: Anasazi Foundation Wilderness therapy program()

  • Pingback: ¥ë¥¤¥ô¥£¥È¥ó Ø”²¼()

  • Pingback: تعویض پنجره()

  • Pingback: free music download()

  • Pingback: دانلود فصل 2 سریال شهرزاد()

  • Pingback: fidget spinner france()

  • Pingback: Projector Enclosures News()

  • Pingback: Music()

  • Pingback: Trade Marketing()

  • Pingback: https://southbeachsingles.ning.com/profiles/blogs/reasons-as-to-why-fruit-juices-are-more-healthy()

  • Pingback: دانلود شهرزاد فصل دوم قسمت چهارم()

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

  • Pingback: Bridgette()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: Exfolia()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال شهرزاد فصل دوم قسمت 5()

  • Pingback: How to keep it tight down there()

  • Pingback: Bonnie()

  • Pingback: 94531()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال عاشقانه قسمت 10 دهم بدون سانسور()

  • Pingback: دانلود موزیک آهنگ فصل 2 سریال شهرزاد()

  • Pingback: visit the next web page()

  • Pingback: Cheap and cool Gadgets()

  • Pingback: Hip-Hop()

  • Pingback: New York Sports Memorabilia Store()

  • Pingback: https://myfolio.com/louserice()

  • Pingback: Makan enak di korea()

  • Pingback: wholesale gadgets()

  • Pingback: п»їSki Show. Holmenkollen, Oslo 2017.06.10 NRK TV()

  • Pingback: iTunes Backup Password Recovery()

  • Pingback: exercises to make your vag tighter()

  • Pingback: schneefanghaken()

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

  • Pingback: Sounds of nature. BEST WILDLIFE VIDEO. [Beautiful Animals and birds].Birdsong()

  • Pingback: Lois()

  • Pingback: zenmed()

  • Pingback: ABCya()

  • Pingback: wholesale nfl jersey()

  • Pingback: replica louis vuitton handbags()

  • Pingback: hardwood flooring store marietta()

  • Pingback: Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags()

  • Pingback: HYDROGEN PEROXIDE FORMULA()

  • Pingback: athens tourist information()

  • Pingback: TURKISH()

  • Pingback: a2hosting web hosting()

  • Pingback: Poker Online Uang Asli()

  • Pingback: web()

  • Pingback: hip hop drama()

  • Pingback: cheats for the walking dead road to survival()

  • Pingback: https://woozyjug4553.mee.nu()

  • Pingback: pickering private mortgages()

  • Pingback: youtubers()

  • Pingback: دانلود رایگان قسمت 9 سریال شهرزاد فصل 2()

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

  • Pingback: pisces man and pisces woman love compatibility 2018()

  • Pingback: Arabic rapper()

  • Pingback: Rent a Car Worldwide()

  • Pingback: yoonla review()

  • Pingback: free porn()

  • Pingback: Construction Ottawa()

  • Pingback: stories()

  • Pingback: SDSEOfirm.com()

  • Pingback: Backup Blu-ray with 5.1/7.1 surrounvertund()

  • Pingback: Lena Paul()

  • Pingback: Saugroboter Test 2017()

  • Pingback: Archery Tab Gloves()

  • Pingback: at home()

  • Pingback: passive bitcoin earning()

  • Pingback: recommend wordpress themes()

  • Pingback: Storage Facilities in Pompano()

  • Pingback: lesbian youtubers()