Lars Larson on the air you breathe, but only if the government lets you

A law school professor who says the very air you breathe is controlled by the government.

There’s a law school professor at the University of Oregon who says that you own the air, all of us own the air of the United States. But, that the government holds it in trust for us and it’s the government’s job to control how we use it. It’s just the start of some of her arguments in favor of controlling what human beings do to the air and the gas they release into it to control global warming.

I think it’s a bunch of hooey as far as I’m concerned. But, this woman has introduced an idea that could get the courts in America involved in controlling how we use the air, how much pollution we put into it and how you’re penalized for putting pollution into the air.

She wants to see global warming gases, that Co2, capped off just eighteen months from now and then see a reduction in the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 4% every year, for every year after that until it’s 80% below the current rates by 2050.

That would destroy America’s economy. It’s a bad idea and it shouldn’t happen.

“For more Lars click here”

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

Posted by at 09:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 20 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    This lady is contributing to global warming. Think of the wasted energy that will be expended dealing with her “idea”.

    I wonder what this woman does with her own air? Is she a good steward of the earth?

    Does she use elephant dung paper or the paper from trees? If she uses tree paper she is hurting me and I will sue.

    Does she breathe in and out? If so, she is polluting and adding Co2 to the very air I have to breathe. I will sue.

    Does she drive a car? Of any kind? If so, she should stop now. She is hurting me. I will sue.

    Does she buy packaged products from the store? If so, I think I will sue her to stop her from hurting me.

    Does she heat her house in winter and cool it in summer? If so, she is hurting me and I will sue.

    Does she eat food that was raised by evil, giant food companies that use big, giant, evil machines in the harvest? If so, she is hurting me and I will sue.

    Does this lady lecture students? If so, she is hurting them and I will sue.

    Does this lady drink any bottled water? I sure hope not, as I will sue her if she is. She is hurting me and mine.

    Does this lady drink any alcoholic beverages? If so, she is taking grains from others to make fire water. She is hurting me and I will sue.

    Does this lady use any electric lights either at home or at work? If so, she is contributing to global warming and she is hurting me and I will sue.

    Does this lady have a fat PERS account? If so, she is hurting me and I will sue.

    Please join me in a giant class action suit against this lady who is ruining Oregon for all of us. She should be ashamed.

    • dave

      You just contributed to global warming with all the hot air you spewed out in your unthoughtful, windbag, blowha#d rant. How not clever of you.

      • jim karlocik

        I just love the tolerance exhibited by our local progressives.

        Thanks
        JK

      • Jerry

        Thanks for your thoughtful and erudite comments.

      • dean

        The basic premise of the law professor seems obvious. None of us has the right to pollute the air that others breathe and rely on for our life support system. We have this long standing legislation called the Clean Air Act that validates her position. What is there to even argue about here? The government clearly has the right to limit what any of us discharges into the atmosphere if that discharge is harmful. If CO2 release causes temperatures to rise, and if the result of that is harmful, then case closed. The government can regulate CO2. Duh.

        By the way…the courts are “already involved.” California, Oregon, and a number of other states have taken the EPA to court over EPAs decision that states could not regulate vehicle emissions in order to reduce CO2. Why are “conservatives” not favoring “states rights” on this one?

        • Anonymous

          You are polluting my air. go away

        • Jerry

          Who is arguing? I want to sue her for what she is doing to hurt me. Just like you say.
          Won’t you join me?
          What is there to even argue about?
          Everyone should be in my class action suit.

        • John in Oregon

          Dean I find your comments challenging and I like challenges that make me think. You do that.

          For example when you commented > *the courts are “already involved.” California, Oregon, and a number of other states have taken the EPA to court over EPAs decision that states could not regulate vehicle emissions in order to reduce CO2. Why are _”conservatives” not favoring “states rights”_ on this one?*

          I know my attorney friends will laugh at my use of language here, language is a particular term of art with the law. But let me take a side trip. In the 1830s an individual moved from the state of Missouri first to Illinois and later to Wisconsin. The law in Missouri was vastly different than either Illinois or Wisconsin. What was legal in Missouri was expressly illegal in both Illinois and Wisconsin.

          This resulted in a case before the US Supreme court in which the argument in support of the Missouri law was that property rights could not be limited or taken away by Illinois State or federal law.

          In speaking for the decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney said, African Americans, be they slave or free, were not citizens. As a slave, moreover, Dred Scott was property and had no right to bring suit in federal courts. By this “states rights” argument, Missouri imposed its slavery laws upon Illinois. Even 130 years ago courts sometimes tried to make law.

          With regard to Oregon > *[T]he courts are “already involved.” California, Oregon, and a number of other states have taken the EPA to court over EPAs decision that states could not regulate vehicle emissions in order to reduce CO2.*

          It’s true that the courts are involved and the law is complex. Lets examine, based on Governor Kulongoski’s public statements, what is involved here.

          With this action the State of Oregon is seeking, by State proclamation, to impose product standards upon manufacturers in Michigan, Japan, Korea, and the EU for the purpose of reducing the CO2 level in Melbourne Australia.

          This hardly rises to the level of a States Rights argument, and I doubt that any valid States Right argument can be made.

          By the way in another thread you asked about the global warming hoax and who is doing this to us. If you research state climate commissions and actions like Oregon’s you may stumble across my second nomination for the who part of the question.

          > *We have this long standing legislation called the Clean Air Act that validates her position.*

          While you and I may disagree on specific provisions of the Clean Air Act, I think we agree on the premise, that I may not urinate in my neighbors well, nor he in mine.

          > *The basic premise of the law professor seems obvious. None of us has the right to pollute the air that others breathe and rely on for our life support system… What is there to even argue about here?*

          Lets talk about the Polar Bear and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Ignoring the rhetoric about increasing numbers and drowned bears. I saw an interview on the News Hours between a spokesman for the Interior Department and an environmental group spokesman.

          Toward the end of the interview, I believe it was Gwen Ifill who asked about Interior regulating CO2. The Interior spokesman quite rightly pointed out that Interior did not have the power and the ESA did not provide authority to regulate CO2. The environmental spokesman’s response was blunt. We will sue.

          The environmental spokesman was talking about the legal game of finding a Judge to make a decision to expand law beyond the accepted understanding of the language of the law. Often because the Judge believes this case ought to be covered.

          Ultimately, the interpretations twist the law into something never envisioned by congress when they wrote the law. This is what people mean when they talk about Judges making law, when _making law ought be done by Congress, Legislatures or the People._

          > *The basic premise of the law professor seems obvious… What is there to even argue about here?*

          Here what Mary Wood is doing is to take the concept of courts making law to a whole new level. She is not asking a court to interpret a law. She is asking a court to _create a law which does not exist._ And she wants it NOW.

          That is, she wants the Courts to assume the powers of the legislative branch of government. Dean, you should be verrrry concerned about that.

          • dean

            John…thanks for your usual thoughtful response. I am way not an attorney, so won’t pretend to know what the law is or how it should be interpreted. My post was about Lars’ statements about Mary Woods….i.e, we already control what humans can put into the air, and the courts are already involved. So what is his beef?

            California has a spcecial dispensation under the Clean Air act to regulate pollution more strictly than the Feds. That is settled law. Other states can choose to folow California’s standards OR the US standards. I believe that is also settled law.

            It comes down to whether CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are air pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. In conventional terms they are not, because they do not cause direct harm to health. But assuming they do cause global warming (I know you don’t assume this) and assuming higher temperatures will have negative effects on health and property (I know you don’t assume this as well,) then it would seem California, Oregon, and the 20 or so other states that are a party to the suit have a case. “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” The US (Bush EPA) has chosen to not lead, and has chosen to get in the way.

            I don’t know if the ESA can be used to force CO2 emission restrictions on behalf of the polar bear. In the past, the ESA has turned out to be an incredibly powerful bit of law that has upended economics over large areas, including our region (spotted owl). Frankly, I think it is way the wrong tool to deal with CO2 emissions. It appears that the next election is going to settle the issue more quickly than the courts will, and that is a good thing.

            Yes…I share your concern about courts “making” as opposed to “interpreting” the law. But I also note that people on either side of any given issue will cheer or bemoan court decisions and accuse them of “activism” or going to far whenever the decision goes against. We have a divided power system in our constitution, and I don’t see the courts as having over reached, except perhaps in Bush vs Florida. Just kidding.

          • John in Oregon

            > *I am way not an attorney, so won’t pretend to know what the law is or how it should be interpreted.*

            I know what you mean. In my field understanding the law and regulations goes with, so I have been forced to learn more than I might wish in order to be able to talk to lawyers. But as they say, a person who represents him self in court has a fool for a client.

            > *California has a spcecial (sic) dispensation under the Clean Air act to regulate pollution more strictly than the Feds. That is settled law. Other states can choose to folow (sic) California’s standards OR the US standards. I believe that is also settled law.*

            In this the State of California was able to show that due to special conditions within California (primarily Los Angeles) that additional requirements were necessary in order for California to meet the requirements of the clean air act. The EPA looked at the California showing and granted permission. California compliant vehicles can and are sold in other states. This does have the look and feel of States Rights.

            But look how that is different. Oregon is seeking to solve a perceived problem that is not unique to Oregon in order to provide a benefit that is not unique to Oregon. That is very different than a states rights argument.

            > *My post was about Lars’ statements about Mary Woods….i.e, we already control what humans can put into the air, [Clean Air Act] and the courts are already involved. So what is his beef?*

            I spoke to exactly that. Let me Quote Wood directly. She said. _“You can’t find an atmospheric obligation in the statutes because Congress hasn’t written any statutes.”_ She is *not* asking a court to interpret a law like the Clean Air Act..

            Wood is doing is taking the concept of courts making law to a whole new level. She is asking a court to _create a law which does not exist._

            Wood wants a Judge to _bypass Congress and the Executive branch of government, create law, decide the solutions, and implement them._

            You comment about CO2 > *But assuming they do cause global warming (I know you don’t assume this)*

            I believe CO2 is one part of a complex system. I know that in any complex system things do not change in isolation. And, I do not assume that the energy from the sun is constant forever and all time.

            I also don’t assume the simple straight line IPCC answer that CO2 equals heat which equals OH MY GOD.

            > *[A]ssuming higher temperatures will have negative effects on health and property (I know you don’t assume this as well,)*

            Both warming and cooling have negative and positive effects. On balance history shows that warm periods are beneficial and cool periods devastating.

            Just remember it wasn’t 20 years ago that some at UN wrote off India as headed for starvation and unsalvageable

            You have commented > *”Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” The US (Bush EPA) has chosen to not lead, and has chosen to get in the way.* You also put it another way > *[N]o we should not be “dicussing (sic) what the effects of warming or cooling will be.” That discussion wastes more time that we don’t have… We should discuss and debate [how to cut CO2.] And if it should turn out we erred in our understanding …we can relax and go on to other issues…*

            Let me put this in prospective for you. I have an acquaintance I will call him Andy. Andy and I were volunteers in emergency services. He is a bit of type A and was always active on a regular basis. Constantly pushing for more.

            One day we were working an event. We found a man down, his backpack in front of him open and some contents spilled.

            I stopped a moment to look around.

            Don’t just stand there, do something Andy shouted as I knelt down.

            Don’t just stand there, give him mouth to mouth said Andy.

            Andy, he is breathing [shallow and ragged] I said as I began to carefully check his limbs.

            Andy said DO SOMETHING, give him CPR as Andy circled the man and I counter clock wise.

            His heart is beating Andy I said.

            I don’t care about his DAMN jewelry Andy yelled, DO SOMETHING as he circled the man and I clock wise.

            Shut up I said, call in and tell control we need an EMT as I began to look through the backpack.

            There is a little known US Air Force instructor by the name of John Boyd. He was an arrogant and unpleasant man with precisely zero air-to-air combat victories to his credit. Known as 40 second Boyd, he was never bested in the air. He wrote the revolutionary tactics manuals that gave American pilots the keys to air-to-air victory… Nor was his achievement limited to the design of the phenomenally successful F-15 and F-16 fighters. The spirit of Top Gun. And those are the lesser of his achievements.

            One of “Boyd’s lesser breakthroughs was to realize that there are three mental steps that precede the physical application of a warrior’s skill, and that these mental steps are not as important as the physical talent. They are far, far more important.”

            The OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.

            At the time I found the man down I didn’t know but I was following the OODA loop.

            I oriented to the situation, found no physical danger, saw his backpack, observed no obvious trauma, found his medic alert bracelet and looked for his bee sting kit. Only then did I ACT.

            *ACT is _last_ on the list.*

            I recommend the discussion of John Boyd at https://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000172.html

            > *The US (Bush EPA) has chosen to not lead, and has chosen to get in the way.*

            That is what Andy said. Dean, First do no harm.

            > *It appears that the next election is going to settle the issue more quickly than the courts will, and that is a good thing.*

            The sun is quiet, its June and snowing at Timberline. McCain or Obama, the next president will preside over the largest tax increase since WW2. Will that president address the nation before an extinguished fire side chat?

            Regarding Judges making law you said > *I also note that people on either side of any given issue will cheer or bemoan court decisions and accuse them of “activism” or going to far whenever the decision goes against.*

            In Washington State Deno Rossie filed a lawsuit over a very flawed election process. Rossie demonstrated fraudulent procedures, Rossie demonstrated fraudulent voter registrations and he even demonstrated that King county counted more votes than were cast in Kind county. The Judge even lectured the county elections several times.

            Nevertheless the Judge ruled under Washington law and rejected Rossie’s claim. Washington law requires showing for whom the fraudulent votes were cast which is impossible with a secret ballot.

            While one might not have thought the result was fair the ruling was proper under Washington law. Rossie accepted that and did not whine or moan.

            > *I don’t see the courts as having over reached, except perhaps in Bush vs Florida. Just kidding.*

            The US Supreme Court ruled 7 – 2 that Florida Courts could not change the rules after the election.

            And then there is this’

            *EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote*
            New York Times November 12, 2001

            A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

            The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots.

          • dean

            John…with all due respect. On global warming (it is 100 degrees in New York City today):

            California and Oregon are not atempting to solve a “perceived” problem. THey are attempting to help solve a “documented” problem. Even the EPA, which is fighting them, does not deny the problem. They are simply blocking a solution.

            Warming has been OBSERVED
            We have had 20 years to ORIENT
            It is high time to ACT

            But I’m glad you did not rush into CPR on that poor dude.

            A carbon tax or cap and trade need not be a net tax increase if either is matched dollar for dollar by a refund on say….SSI. None other than evil doer James Hansen is advocating this very approach, which he calls “cap and refund.” The tax can be adjusted upward as much as neded to discourage carbon release, while at the same time people are not out any additional money, and can make adjustments as they see fit.

          • John in Oregon

            > *John…with all due respect. On global warming (it is 100 degrees in New York City today)*

            Seattle, The coldest first week of June, according to climate records dating to 1891.

            Eugene, latest Wallamette Valley snow on record.

            June 10 08, A heavy snow warning has been issued for the Washington Cascades and Olympics.

            June 10 08, 1-1/2 inches of snow in Pullman Washington.

            June 13, The Aspen Skiing Company Aspen open for skiing and snow boarding.

            June 11, latest snow on record in Boise Idaho.

            Current hot summer states;
            Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi. North Carolina, South Carolina.

            Current colder than normal to much colder states;
            Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, California, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York (State), North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

            *RSS MSU Global Temperature Anomaly*
            MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE V3.01
            *Down – .643* Degree C

            *UAH MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE LT5.2*
            Global Temperature Anomaly 1979 – 2008
            *Down – .774* Degree C

            > *California and Oregon are not atempting (sic) to solve a “perceived” problem. THey (sic) are attempting to help solve a “documented” problem.”*

            This is a States Rights argument, how?
            This is a State and not a Federal issue, how?

            >
            *Warming has been OBSERVED
            We have had 20 years to ORIENT
            It is high time to ACT*

            The OODA loop is:

            1] ORIENT
            2] OBSERVE
            3] DECIDE
            4] ACT

            1] ORIENT: The earth in currently in the Holocene interglacial period between major Ice Ages. Presently during this period we are in a warm period similar to the Medieval Warm Period. During the Medieval Warm Period the Vikings settled and farmed Greenland, established a settlement on the east coast of Canada, and the Polar Bears thrived.

            2] OBSERVE: During interglacial periods climate warms and cools, solar output rises and falls, and CO2 rises and falls. Many factors are involved with climate.

            Dean, there are *critical observations* that are needed. The significance of the green house gases is as follows;
            Water vapor ——- 95.0%
            CO2 —————– 3.6%
            N2O —————– 0.95%
            Methane ———— 0.36%
            CFC ETC ———— 0.072%

            Dean, answer the following *critical questions!*

            1] Have you or any study observed the green house sign of water vapor? That is, does increasing water vapor cause increased warming or increased cooling?

            2] Cloud and Temperature variability are associated. Have you or any study observed that;

            —- 2A] Cloud variability is the result of temperature variability,
            OR
            —- 2B] Temperature variability is the result of cloud variability

            Dean, Which answer is correct?

            > *A carbon tax or cap and trade need not be a net tax increase if either is matched dollar for dollar by a refund on say….SSI.*

            First, assuming Congress actually did this, and that would be an unprecedented assumption. Congress spends every dime they get their hands on, including the SSI income.

            Second, there is a name for what you have suggested. Income Redistribution.

            > *None other than evil doer James Hansen is advocating this very approach, which he calls “cap and refund.”*

            *From the Register (UK)*
            Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world’s leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming… You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other endeavour, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it.

            > *The tax can be adjusted upward as much as neded (sic) to discourage carbon release, while at the same time people are not out any additional money, and can make adjustments as they see fit.*

            First, this is a rationing system with a shinny new name to hide that fact.

            Second, this is one of the three factors, resource restrictions, rationing, and windfall profits tax that allowed Jimmy Carter to preside over the _end of the American Dream._ Carter told us that as he sat beside the fire in the white house.

            And what are you and Congress proposing? Production restrictions (no drilling), rationing (cap and trade), and a windfall profits tax.

            Third, if Congress actually did as you suggest, (and we both know they won’t) so that *at the same time people are not out any additional money* then the rationing wont work. So we now have a fourth factor that will make things even worse.

            Remember what I said about the next president in 2011 or 2012 as he sits beside the extinguished fire to address the nation about _the end of the American dream._

          • dean

            John…for the IPCC take on clouds and climate models, see: https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm

            According to NOAA, the late 20th century is the warmest the earth has been in at least 1200 years. That includes Eric the Red’s brief period in 80% ice covered “Greenland.” The Vikings did not really “farm” Greenland. They ranched it….until they starved to death after 2 or 3 bad years in a row. They were at the outer edge of European civilization and paid a steep price.

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

            Water vapour. Climate scientists have accounted for it. A good technical discussion is at:
            https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220

            Tax and refund is not rationing. It is calculated behavior change by making carbon expensive enough that people will think twice before buying a Hummer. It is only “income redistribution” if one person decided to keep burning up the fuel while another chose conservation. Individual choice. If you ride a bike and solarize your abode you can pocket most or all of your refund. Waste and you pay.

            “Me and Congress” are not proposing anything. I have little influence over the buggers. Only one of them even knows of my existence. But if it were me, I would tax the heck out of carbon based fuels and refund from the bottom up. Then get out of the way and let the free market do its thing. This is what you conservatives ought to be backing.

            John…I don’t know which American dream you are referring to. My own American dream is a sustainable planet for my kid and his kids, should he ever go on a date.

          • John in Oregon

            > * John…for the IPCC take on clouds and climate models, see: https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm*

            Dean I didn’t ask you for the IPCC assumptions. I asked for facts. Have you or any study observed the green house sign of water vapor? Does increasing water vapor cause increased warming or increased cooling?

            I am fully aware of the IPCC speculation, hardly sufficient. Speculation is _not_ research. Since you did not show research I would reference;

            Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations.
            Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo
            GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 10/29/2007

            This research suggests the sign is _negative._

            > * Water vapour. (sic) Climate scientists have accounted for it. A good technical discussion is at:*

            I did not ask for a discussion or assumptions to “account” for it, I asked for research to identify whether Cloud variability is the result of temperature variability, OR Temperature variability is the result of cloud variability. Again;

            Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations.
            Braswell, Christy, and. Hnilo
            GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 10/29/2007

            This research suggests that clouds predominate over temperature. I will discuss feedback further below.

            > *According to NOAA, the late 20th century is the warmest the earth has been in at least 1200 years. That includes Eric the Red’s _brief period_ in 80% ice covered “Greenland.” The Vikings did not really _”farm”_ Greenland. They ranched it….until they starved to death after 2 or 3 bad years in a row..*

            Dean, if one is going to quote history it is best to do so accurately. From the Archaeology Institute of America;

            [T]he first 24 boatloads of land-hungry settlers who set out from Iceland in the summer of *986* to colonize new territory explored several years earlier by the vagabond and outlaw, Erik the Red… The Greenlanders prospered. From *the number of farms in both colonies,* whose 400 or so stone ruins still dot the landscape, archaeologists guess that the population may have risen to a peak of about 5,000.

            As the *archaeologists dug through the permafrost and removed the windblown glacial sand* that filled the rooms, they found fragments of looms and cloth.…. Radiocarbon dating of their remains revealed that they died out suddenly when these conditions ceased to prevail *around 1350.*

            As the Greenlanders’ isolation from Europe grew, they found themselves victims of a steadily deteriorating environment. *Their farmland,* exploited to the full, had lost fertility….

            *Greenland’s climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler,* limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. *Over the decades the drop in temperature* seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders’ houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures,… they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might *benefit from the animals’ body heat.*

            Dean, this archaeological narrative says quite a lot. First, the period 986 to 1,350 is 364 years and not as you say a brief period.

            Second, this narrative clearly indicates the Vikings were farming in Greenland.

            Third, the failure of the settlements in 1,350 is the time when the world was entering the Little Ice Age. Clearly consistent with the archaeological evidence that the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler.

            Fourth, the settlements were established in 986, the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period.

            Fifth and most important note the description, “archaeologists dug through the permafrost and removed the windblown glacial sand.* The current present day permafrost shows it was _warmer in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period_ when the Vikings _farmed_ in Greenland.

            Dean you said > *According to NOAA, the late 20th century is the warmest the earth has been in at least 1200 years.*

            I will state again, there is later and better work which contests the NOAA, Mann work;
            A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based On Non-Treering Proxies
            Loehle 2007

            I am well aware of the attempts to rehabilitate the hockey stick. As I have mentioned in the past Climatologists, even those that contest the claim of AGW, agree there has been a uptick in global temperature. Further, Mann’s hockey stick is generally minor work. So the question I have asked you in the past is why its so necessary to bring the hockey stick back.

            Since you have not answered I will. The hockey stick is necessary because it minimized the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. So long as the MWP and the LIA exist the present warm period is neither unusual or alarming.

            NOAA / Mann temperature reconstruction is based on tree ring proxies. There is new research that is applicable;

            Leaves keep their cool Leaves resist temperature extremes regardless of the weather.
            Brent Helliker, 11 June 2008 Nature

            According to the University of Pennsylvania “The research, published online in this week’s Nature, *contradicts the longstanding assumption that temperature and relative humidity in an actively photosynthesizing leaf are coupled to ambient air conditions.* For decades, *scientists studying climate change have measured the oxygen isotope ratio in tree-ring cellulose to determine the ambient temperature and relative humidity of past climates. The assumption in all of these studies was that tree leaf temperatures were equal to ambient temperatures.*

            Researchers at Penn, using measures of oxygen isotopes and current climate, determined a way to estimate leaf temperature in living trees and as a consequence showed this assumption to be incorrect. *This is an unfortunate finding for the potential to reconstruct climate through tree-ring isotope analysis* but a boon to ecologists because it creates potential for the reconstruction of tree responses to both average climate and climate change over the last couple of centuries.

            > *Tax and refund is not rationing. It is calculated behavior change by making carbon expensive enough that people will think twice before buying a Hummer.*

            Rationing comes in many forms, coupon, odd and even days, and price are examples.

            Random House Unabridged Dictionary
            Ration, Verb; _to restrict the consumption of a commodity._

            Cap and Trade, or Tax and Refund, is calculated to restrict the consumption of carbon. Both are rationing. By price.

            > *It is only “income redistribution” if one person decided to keep burning up the fuel while another chose conservation. Individual choice.*

            An element of choice does not remove the element of income redistribution. Calling it choice does not make it any less coercive.

            *A note about feedback.*

            Negative and Positive feedback are well know to engineers of electrical, mechanical and pneumatic systems. It is absolutely inviolate that systems with net positive feedback inherently unstable. That is, the system will latch at one of the extremes or oscillate wildly between extremes.

            Sometimes this characteristic is intentionally used to advantage. Otherwise engineers expend great effort to insure that systems are feedback neutral or net negative in order to insure system stability.

            To suggest, as the IPCC does, that the climate system is feedback net positive does not pass the smell test. If true one would expect the climate to become permanently warm, permanently cold or oscillate wildly between extremes.

            Net positive feedback is, however, advantages were one to wish to promote the horror of runaway global warming.

            A smell test however is not proof. Which is why the answers to the two questions I asked you earlier are critically important.

          • dean

            John…all or nearly all of the relevant peer reviewed temperature proxy studies and references are at :https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            “Energy and Envirnment journal is a phony “peer review” source John. Here is what Sourcewatch has to say about it:

            “The journal Energy and Environment is a *social science* journal published by Multi-Science. The journal’s editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

            Energy and Environment is *not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.* Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers [1][2]. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton[3].”

            So…your reference is not a “later and better work.” It appears to be a non-starter that is not taken seriously by climate scientists. It is part of the skeptic industry. Leave it be and retain your own credibility.

            Water vapor is a climatic feedback effect, not a forcing effect. You are grasping at straws my friend.

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

            You are also stretching the definition of income redistribution beyond all hope. If one has “choice” then by definition one is not being coerced. Coersion means compelling a person to behave INVOLUNTARILY in a certain way. If we raise a tax on carbon, you have free choice to burn it. But you have to pay more.If I choose to take my rebate and buy a bike and ride it, then I come out ahead. Nothing wring with choice.

            Price of gas approaching $5 a gallon John. Our argument is increasingly academic. Its time to conserve and find alternatives to carbon based fuels.

  • jim karlocik

    I hope that means she wants forest fires put out immediately.

    I hope she is in favor of vastly increased logging to clear the way for new trees which soak up lot more CO2 than old trees.

    I hope she uses a lot of paper which ends up in land fills – that buries the carbon and makes way for new trees to soak up more carbon.

    Thanks
    JK

  • Smelly Fireman Randy

    “It’s just the start of some of her arguments in favor of controlling what human beings do to the air and the gas they release into it to control global warming. ”
    ====

    What is her name and where is her office?

    I have lots of bad gas, and not just after eating burritos. I would like to bottle up (actually I prefer using plastic milk jugs) my bad gas and share it with this nice lady.

    I hope the powers that be will not start fining me for all my bad gas, or else I may go bankrupt.

  • Bob Clark

    I should think it could be argued the U.S doesn’t even control the air since the air molecules know no borders. Therefore, it would be an international issue, and not a U.S court issue. Even so, it’s scary how folks want to squash individual freedom in what used to be the land of the free and home of the brave.

  • Joanne Rigutto

    Welcome to the world of ‘Good Governance’ the United Nations Way….

  • dartagnan

    Lars, we already have laws governing what you can and cannot put into the air. Have had them for many, many years. The economy has survived.

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)