Whitsett says new resources needed to curb pain at the pump and in grocery stores

Press release from Senator Doug Whitsett

Whitsett says new resources needed to curb pain at the pump and in grocery stores

Governor ignores plight of Oregon families

Salem, OR — While the Governor turns his back on the economic difficulties in Oregon, Senator Doug Whitsett (R-Klamatha Falls) is calling for an end to the moratorium on off-shore exploration for resources that could provide financial relief to Oregon families.

“Oregon, like the rest of the United States, is one of the most resource-abundant places on the planet, and yet we aren’t managing those resources effectively and Oregon families are struggling to afford gas, milk and healthcare,” said Whitsett. “With today’s technology we can manage off-shore exploration while protecting the environment. This is no longer just a good idea, it is a necessity.”
According to the US Minerals Management Service, the United States currently imports 4.5 billion barrels of oil a year. Exploring the Outer Continental Shelf would produce an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil.

Governor Kulongoski issued a statement Monday opposing a national proposal to fight high fuel costs and dependence on foreign oil by exploring for domestic sources of energy in off-shore deposits. Meanwhile, according to the US Energy Information Administration, the average price of a gallon of gas was $4.40 on Tuesday, $1.20 more than a year ago. On January 4, 2007, when Democrats took control of Congress gasoline averaged $2.33 across the nation.

“Alternative sources of energy and conservation are certainly pieces of the solution, but Oregon families are going to be left with a big bill if we don’t offer some real solutions right now to mitigate their costs at the pump and in the grocery store,” said Whitsett.

The price of food is predicted to increase by as much as 5.5% in 2008, which for Oregon families means they will be paying 10% more at the grocery store than they were two years ago.

Another reason grocery costs have escalated so high over the last two years is a shortage of corn created by the Governor’s so-called “˜clean fuel requirements.’ These mandates are part of the reason milk and bread have reached such stratospheric price ranges.

“Solutions to our energy dependence need to be based on substance, not merely symbolic gestures that only create more problems in the long run,” said Whitsett.

Sources
USDA, Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/
US Energy Information Administration: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/worldbusiness/15food.html?pagewanted=print
The Oregonian: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1215487520291830.xml&coll=7

###

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

Posted by at 02:25 | Posted in Measure 37 | 31 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • jim karlocik

    This is just one more example that shows how little Oregon’s progressives care about the poor. Their mantra seems to be let them starve in the dark to further our solutions to the Earth’s imagined problems.

    The really scary thing is that many of them think that modern civilization is harming the Earth and so must be destroyed. How else can you explain their choices:

    Don’t drill for low cost oil to help people get to work and stay warm, it may harm the Earth.

    Don’t import cheap natural gas so that low income people can afford to heat their homes, they should be living in tiny apartments instead.

    Don’t allow cheap nu-clear energy, we would rather pay $0.30/kW-hr for solar.

    Don’t log to build homes for people and employ thousands or Oregonians, it may harm an owl which it turns out was being eaten by another owl.

    Don’t allow land for living, who cares is the price of housing is double what is should be. Oregon used to have affordable housing before Metro built the Portland wall.

    Restrict CO2 by 80-90% and slowly strangle industry until we are living like they did in the 1700s.

    The only other explanation is that our leaders are too stupid to realize the likely consequences of their actions.

    BTW: Has anyone actually proven that CO2 can cause dangerous global warming?

    I ask because, as I looked deeper into global warming, I found a few mentions of this and HAVE NOT found any papers even claiming to prove that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

    I did, however, find several that claim to prove that *CO2 increase is a response to, not cause of, temperature increase.*

    (by papers I mean published in quality scientific journals – peer reviewed as Al would say)

    Thanks
    JK

  • Martha

    I don’t think our cost of living increases including gas and its effects on food prices have as much to do with the availability of, or demand for, oil right now as the media and our ‘experts’ are trying to convince us of. Even those who admit some of the increase might be due to inflation propose that it is fairly small. Why is it then that fuel costs are remaining relatively stable in most places in the world? This seems to suggest that the problem is more local, something that is particular to the countries having problems, and less a result of the larger oil market.

    Perhaps, as well as the government’s incredibly stupid idea with the corn/ethanol thing, we should be looking to congress and the Federal Reserve’s habit of increasing the money supply to pay for whatever it wants in the moment. We need a lot money for unfunded entitlement programs while maintaining a world empire and trying to pay for a very costly series of wars that includes the rebuilding of Iraq, and the dozen new constructs in that country like our ridiculously large embassy and a dozen military bases. I don’t think people realize the enormity of our debt. Or how precarious is the standing our dollars.

    I am not convinced one way or the other about opening up these areas to drilling, but it’s really annoying to see people ignoring the greater problem for the relatively more comfortable band-aid issues. You fix our undisclosed inflation problem by phasing out entitlement programs we cannot legitimately pay for, get out of the Afghani, Iraq and soon to be Iran wars/occupations, stop bailing out whole industries with ‘government’ money, and I guarantee gas will get significantly cheaper. Easy huh?

  • Jeff

    I’m not really worried one way or another about offshore drilling off Oregon – basically I don’t think we’ve got the right geology off our shores for there to be oil.

    I don’t think it’s normal to find oil around spreading & subducting plate boundaries.

    • eagle eye

      Just today, the Wall St. Journal had a table of offshore oil deposits in various regions. Oregon/Washington was listed and it was tiny. I doubt that offshore drilling is going to do much one way or another in Oregon.

  • Steve Plunk

    Jim Karlock’s point is so broad yet so true. The modern liberal, or more specifically the modern Democrat, cares little for his fellow mans plight. The Utopian dreams harbored by these kooks require the discarding of a few but what the hey. As a famous liberal once said, you must break a few eggs to make an omlette.

    Our Governor is clueless as a bowling ball when it comes to the concerns of working Oregonians. Sorry, nonunion working Oregonians. His alliance with environmentalists has resulted in our timber industry being destroyed as well as our fuel supply being corrupted with ethanol. I have tried to be civil when describing him but dumb is the only way to do it.

    It comes down to this simple rule in November, if you want high gas prices, no jobs, an economy crippled for years, and terrorists with the rights of citizens, vote Democratic. If you want cheaper gas, more jobs, a dynamic economy, and terrorists treated as terrorists, then vote Republican.

    • Chris McMullen

      What do you expect from a guy who relied on a child molester in order to get an upper hand in Oregon politics? It’s sickening and sad.

      Alas, Goldschmidt’s influence will be felt for another 20 years in this state

    • Tim Lyman

      There’s an old saying that a liberal is a man who bemoans the plight of the poor in public, yet beats his servants in private.

  • dean

    Someone please explain to me how exploring for oil off the Oregon coast would relieve the present high gas prices, low wages, and high food prices paid by blue collar Oregonians?

    JK…if we do find any oil under the deep blue sea, it will not be “low cost,” rest assured. It will be quite expensive to find, extract, and deliver to market.

    Martha…the relative stability of gas prices in other nations is probably due to 3 things:

    1) High taxes on gas in European nations can buffer market price
    rises
    2) Some nations heavily subsidize pump prices (Mexico, Iran, India, China, Saudi Arabia)
    3) A large part of our high prices have to do with the decline in the international value of th dollar relative to other currencies, particularly the Euro. Since the Euro is so strong, the dollar price of oil is reduced for them

    I think we will end up sooner or later opening everything we have to EXPLORATION, and if anything is actually there and can be produced economically, then it will be on line 10 or 20 years from now. But we have to understand that by definition, when we are out at the limit of our continental waters, we are into our last reserve. We better have a plan for the day after this time, because we will be out of continent.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >But we have to understand that by definition, when we are out at the limit of our continental waters, we are into our last reserve.

      How in the world do you figure that? Are you a petroleum engineer? On what is this factoid based?

      When it comes to drilling, I have no idea of what it costs in terms of equipment, research and most importantly an army of lawyers to fight off the wacko’s and neither do you. Therefore the supposition that just because one is drilling in the sea, means there is no other place to drill is ridiculous. It just could simply be more economically feasible. Is drilling 500 feet into a seabed more expensive than directional drilling a mile in Montana? Less? I don’t know, and neither do you.

    • Anonymous

      Go tell your mother she wants you

  • eagle eye

    I’ve come to the conclusion that both sides — those who want more oil drilling, and those who want “alternative energy” schemes — are using the runup in gas prices for their own purposes. And one purpose is to avoid the biggest cause of the price increase, which is the debasement of the U.S. dollar. It has happened under Bush, but both sides — left and right, for simplicity — have been plenty complicit. And now that the chickens have come home to roost — some of them — they are looking for a panacea to deflect attention and give an easy way out.

    • dean

      I agree both sides are using high gas prices to get us off dead center with respect to alternative energy on the one side, and sucking out the last bits on the other. That is to be expected.

      But…isn’t the dollar’s debasement due to low interest rates needed to fund the perpetual budget imbalances and to prop up consumer spending? Aren’t we simply reaping many years of lousy fiscal management 9sandwiched areound a few good years in the late 90s)? Why are socialist Europeans managing their curency more conservatively than us?

      Rupert….Let’s see….we have a continent, by definition surrounded by water. We have jurisdiction of that water out around 200 miles. Thus…limit. That is all there is. Our jurisdiction does not extend any further. What is so hard to understand about that?

      I’m not a petroleum engineer, but it defies logic to believe that exploring for, and then developing oil resources that lie deep under oceans remote from shore and thus far from existing pipelines can be equal to or less expensive than land based resources. North Sea oil costs about 5 times what Saudi or Texas oil costs to produce. The continental United States is the most explored terrain on the planet. If we had large deposits of liquid oil anywhere in the lower 48, it would be discovered and drilled for before sending ships far out to sea to punch holes way down there. I give the oil industry more credit for brains than you seem to.

      • eagle eye

        No, the late 90’s were not the only time of good fiscal management. In a lot of ways they were very unsound. Clinton (with plenty of help from Congress) let American defenses slide. That is one reason the “good management” was possible. We are paying for it now.

        There is plenty of blame for the currency debasement. Whoever is to blame, has nothing to do with my point — which is that the current energy panic is largely a function of monetary policy.

        Why have the Europeans done better? Plenty of reasons. One reason for the debasement is something for which I have sympathy with the U.S. government: the desire to prop up the economy after 9/11. Remember that little incident?

        Another thing is, the Euros have been freeloading on defense for decades, and certainly are now. In some ways, being parasitical allows you to be more “responsible” in certain respects. I would love to see them pick up some of the military burden and then see how well their currency would be doing.

        • dean

          Eagle…its debatable. The Europeans hid under our security blanket for decades when the Soviet tanks were across the border, but those days are long gone. The decline in defense spending in the 90s was bi-partisan, and only made sense given the diminishment of the direct threat. Muslim terrorists with home made bombs simply do not constitute the same magnitude of threat as tens of thousands of tanks, millions of soldiers and 30,000 nuclear warheads aimed at our cities.

          The Europeans and Canadians are serving alongside our troops and dying in Afganistan. They are patrolling Bosnia and Kosovo. Most of them tried to talk us out of the Iraq war and we should have listened to them. All we did was make Iran stronger and unleash chaos.

          I would rather see us let go of our taking responsibility for world security. Our defense budget is higher than something like the next 100 nations added up. We have troops stationed in over 100 nations. What has this brought us? $5 a gallon gasoline, 2 wars with no end in sight, bin Laden still thumbing his nose at us froma safe haven, an umanageable debt and a rapidly collapsing economy. We cannot compel Europeans to defend themselves, but we can choose to defend them and others less and focus on our own security, which is financial as well as military.

  • Bob Clark

    If there is little oil to be had off the Oregon coast after the oil companies look for some, then what’s the problem with letting them explore. If there’s little or no oil to be had, there won’t be any viable oil rigs put down off the coast, and therefore, no environmental consequences. It’s only if there is economical quantities off the coast, the oil rigs and wells will be sunk. The governor must be afraid we might strike it rich.

    Same goes for the Demos argument the oil companies aren’t using the leases they now have. If they largely go unused, why not sell more. There should be minimal environmental consequences then. It only becomes a concern if there is actually oil available out there and the oil companies work to produce it.

    The Demos are afraid we might strike it rich in our own backyards.

  • eddie

    Years and years of high defecit and low defecit, growing and shrinking (sort of), and little correlation with the value of the dollar. However, look at the prime interest rate of the Federal Reserve, and see a precise relationship between interest rates and dollar values.

    If you want to play blame, you’ve got 400-some odd people indicted for predatory lending which led to the mortgage “crisis” which led to the drop in the interest rate… which led to the dollar decline.

    On the other hand, since oil is a futures market, a willingness to explore and ability to drill will have an impact on prices much faster and much greater than might seem probable. Oil production and use is fairly well known, and somewhat inelastic, so any upswing in production will have a marked effect. Just what, exactly, are people trying to save a layer of goo deep underground for? Will its removal endanger the habitat of the deep-earth oil-breathing musk-worm?

  • Jerry

    This all is actually good. The poor are paying through the nose for basic necessities due to the abject failure of the Democrats.

    If only they could figure it out.

  • pk2

    Wasteful government spending and poor decision making can be attributed to both sides of the aisle. It’s pretty useless to point fingers at the other guy without first examing the areas that can be corrected in one’s own camp.

    I would love to see less bipartisan squabbling and more focus on how WE can address some of OUR problems.

  • Jerry

    I just wish Doug would do something rather than just talk about what needs doing.
    Actually DO something.
    But that might be hard…

  • John in Oregon

    This new item in speaks for its self

    *APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming- cites “Considerable presence” of skeptics*
    From Mike Asher at the DailyTech:

    The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has _reversed its stance on climate change_ and is _now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming._ The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science…

    In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains, _”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”_

    • dean

      John…don’t get too excited. The APS has not reversed its position on climate change. This is off of the APS web site:

      “APS Position Remains Unchanged

      The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

      “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

      An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.”

      https://www.aps.org/

    • John in Oregon

      The headline *”APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming*- cites *“Considerable presence” of skeptics”* is incomprehensible HOW???

      Further.

      1] The APS Council position discredited which part of Viscount Monckton’s (an AGW skeptic) presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change???

      2] The APS Council position “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate” _eliminates a considerable presence of APS skeptics,_ HOW??

      3] The APS is closing the AGW debate and will un-publish a paper by Lord Monckton WHEN?

      The simple fact is nothing you said invalidates the article stating a considerable presence of skeptics exists within the APS and steps are occurring to _promote_ APS debate.

      For reasons of space I did not post the entire article. Within that article is an example of a nonexistent APS skeptic. _”Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton’s paper an “expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and “extensive errors””_

      For reference the Monckton paper that the APC will publish concludes that the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.

      Now lets take a look at the reaffirmed APS Council position;

      *”Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”*

      As it happens I completely agree with that position, and I have not seen an AGW skeptic that disagrees either. BUT before you dance in the street as having won, read what that statement says, and _what it does not say._ lets step through it:

      Humans are burning carbon fuels, true.
      CO2 is added to the atmosphere, yupp.
      The change is in ways that affect earth’s climate, check.

      ALSO

      The statement does _not_ say AGW CO2 is the cause of Global Warming.
      The statement does _not_ eliminate natural factors of past and current warm and cool periods.
      The statement does _not_ say there will be a Global Warming disaster.

      The AGW CO2 _skeptics_ know that CO2 and many other natural factors are involved with past and current warm and cool trends. The debate is how much for each of the factors.

      AGW true believers _know_ humans are destroying the world.

      True Believer Dr. David Suzuki, *find a way of throwing skeptics and politicians into jail.*
      True Believer Dr James Hansen, *jail the evil oil executives.*
      True Believer Al Gore *skeptics who disagree must be forced to step aside.*

      Dean do you support or repudiate the extremism of Suzuki / Hansen / Gore?

  • eagle eye

    The official APS statement is so bland as to be indisputable:

    “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

    Nobody in his right mind disputes that human activities are affecting the Earth’s climate. The question is how big the effect is and what are the implications. There is a very wide range of viewpoints on that.

    The action of the APS Physics and Society forum is very significant because it shows that the enforced monopoly on allowable scientific opinion is braking up, under pressure from the considerable number of scientists who don’t go along with the standard line.

    • dean

      Eagle…I think you are reading way more into a what is essentially a blog post than what is there. Yes…the statement is bland. But the APS has a much more detailed position paper on this topic, and I believe it supporst the IPCC fully.

      If and when the APS actually changes its position, that will indeed be news.

    • John in Oregon

      Dean:

      The article is NOT about the APS position.

      The article IS about the considerable presence of skeptics and the promotion of debate.

      Both of which Suzuki / Hansen / Gore / IPCC wish to supress.

      • dean

        John…I did not say it was incomprehensible. I said your statement was wrong. You posted the following:

        *The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change*

        This statement is not incomprehensible…it is simply wrong. The APS has not reversed its position. Do you agree or disagree?

        As for the rest, okay…not every one of their 50,000 members agrees with the APS position. I accept that point. I don’t know what a ‘considerable presence” is. Do you? 10 members? 100? 1000? Define *considerable* for me.

        The “statement” by APS is just one sentence. If you dig a little deeper you will find that they fully support the IPCC position, and are on record as doing so. Much ado about nothing.

        Lord Moncton is a sometimes entertaining science hack. What credentials does he have in climate science John? None. Why would the APS, a science organization give him the time of day?

        And before you answer that Al Gore is also not a scientist, let me say in advance I fully agree. I don’t care what Big Al has to say on the science of global warming.

        And don’t fret…Dr Suzuki, Al, and James Hansen are not authorized to throw anyone in jail or to stifle their free speech rights. Their point is to try and get the mainstream media, public officials, and wider public to stop paying attention to an ever diminishing yet still damaging circle of skeptics who have managed to hold off serious action (in the gullible US at least) through deliberate obfuscation. I support their efforts, and do not consider them to be extreme in any way. What they “wish” is for the skeptics to put up or shut up. Either disprove the AGW science or get out of the way of those trying to solve a very troubling problem for humanity.

        • dean

          John…here is the more complete public position of th APS, which was released in 2007:

          “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

          *The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.*

          Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

          I don’t think their statement leaves much room for skeptics, do you?

      • John in Oregon

        1 > *I did not say it was incomprehensible.*

        And you know full well I did not attribute that to you. Actually it was a somewhat polite way to call attention your lack of comprehension of the DailyTech article. A fact I pointed out AGAIN in my post just above.

        2 > *I said your statement was wrong.*

        If you feel the statement is wrong then you should take it up with the author. It is obvious you did not consult the article even though the attribution to the author, Mike Asher, and the publication, DailyTech is abundantly clear.

        3 Dean you said > *You posted the following: The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change*

        I said no such thing. Dean when I post a quote, even when truncation for space is necessary, I strive to do so accurately. Misquotation serves no one well. The *correct* quite of Mike Asher, and my post of portions of his article is:

        “The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change *and is now proclaiming that _many of its members disbelieve_ in human-induced global warming.”* That is significantly different than your misquote above!

        Now there are only two possibilities here;
        First, you truly do not comprehend the content of the article and therefor did not understand your misquotation was FALSE.
        OR
        Second, you do understand the content of the article and therefor intentionally misquoted in order sabotage the article.

        Dean let me show you the “proper” way to disagree with and take apart an article contents.

        In an earlier thread Dr David Appel, referring to some of heated rhetoric, asked something along the lines of who are the global warming scaremongering cabal? That’s a reasonable question worth answering.

        The Suzuki / Hansen / Gore extremism comes to mind. However a more cogent response to David’s question is in order. And such is at hand in the June 20th, 2008 issue of Science News.

        *Forest invades tundra*
        …and the new tenants could aggravate global warming

        The article begins;

        —“People frequently say “green” to mean “environmentally friendly.” But encroaching conifer forests …threaten to further spike the far North’s already low-grade fever. This ecosystem hosts a cover of reflective snow most of the year, a feature that helps maintain the region’s chilly temperatures.”

        —“Ecologists and climatologists are concerned because emerging forest data suggest that the albedo, or reflectivity, of large regions across the Arctic will change. Most sunlight hitting snow and ice bounces back into space instead of being absorbed and converted to heat. So if a white landscape becomes open sea or boreal forest, what was once a solar reflector becomes a heat collector.”

        Here the author has discussed some old known information for background context, snow reflects solar heat back out into space. The article continues.

        —“Tree rings from the Arctic Urals show that since the 15th century, many Siberian larch … have grown in a stunted, shrubby form, sporting multiple spindly trunks. This adaptation to harsh conditions helps the trees weather wind and snow. But the trees invest so many calories in making multistemmed clusters, [ecologist Frank] Hagedorn says, that they end up puny and unable to make seeds. This infertility has thwarted the stand’s spread… Overall, 70 percent of upright larches have emerged in just the past 80 years. Since 1950, 90 percent of local upright larches have been single-stemmed.”

        —“Throughout the past half-century, a far more pervasive disturbance … has been subtly transforming the tundra landscape. It starts with the arrival of tiny shrubs, such as spreading willows perhaps only 7.5 centimeters (about 3 inches) high, explains ecologist Ken Tape, also at Alaska-Fairbanks.”

        Here the article author discusses the new research which shows how cold stunts growth of Siberian Larch forests. The article also notes the researchers findings that forest vitality has increased in the last 80 years. Also note the 15 century date it will be important later. The article continues.

        —““There’s what people call a big Arctic carbon bomb” waiting to go off, Bunn says. Up to 200 petagrams … are stored in the top meter of Arctic tundra. For comparison, the atmosphere already has 730 petagrams of carbon in it, he adds. If shrub-related warming releases much of this carbon, it could undermine much of the carbon-limiting measures people are contemplating to slow global warming, he notes.”

        With this alarmist language, *the Arctic Carbon Bomb,* the article author makes sure that we understand *the impending total disaster.* The Author wants to be clear that every reader know humans are to blame for the distraction of the world.

        BUT there is one other fact the article author notes.

        —“Conifers here now reside where no living tree has grown in some 1,000 years, points out one of the authors, ecologist Frank Hagedorn of the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research in Birmensdorf.”

        That’s it. No follow up. No explanation. No context. The author simply includes that quote and then immediately sweeps aside to be ignored and moves on.

        Take a moment and look more deeply, consider for example those dates. The author could have told us that in the 15 Century the Viking colonists in Greenland were starving to death as their crops failed in the colder and colder weather. The author might have told us this period of time was one of the colder periods of this interglacial period. The author might even have mentioned the name of the period, the Little Ice Age. What might a reasonable reader have thought knowing that information?

        But there is more. Remember that line the author brushed aside. Lets look at it closely. _”Conifers here now reside where no living tree has grown in some 1,000 years, points out one of the authors, ecologist Frank Hagedorn…”_ It’s obvious that as a researcher, Hagedorn is aware that today’s conifer encroaching areas were forested 1,000 years ago and felt it important enough to mention in the interview.

        What might the author have told us about this time? Well it’s a period where human civilization, wildlife, and plant life flourished. A period like today were it was warm or warmer than today. A period known as the Medieval Warm Period. The period when the Vikings colonized and began farming in Greenland.

        What might a reasonable reader have concluded with the missing information about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period? Might the reader have felt warm and cold periods are normal and nothing unusual?

        Dean that’s the proper way to contest an article. If you want to take down Mike Asher’s article, then feel free to do so with facts and logic. Show his error and there are no skeptics in APS and that APS will censer skeptic articles.

        While you are at it you might want to consider this article from The Australian.

        *No smoking hot spot*
        David Evans | July 18, 2008

        I will let David introduce his qualifications and speak for himself.

        “I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.”

        “FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.”

        “When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.”

        “The evidence was not conclusive, *but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?* Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

        *”But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.* As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?””

        “There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts.”

        • dean

          John, my confusion was that I attributed the article you were quoting from to your own writing and ideas. I apologize for that mistake. My bad. I see now you don’t actually agree with the bit you quoted, that the APS has NOT in fact reversed its stance, and the APS is NOT proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human induced global warming. Right? Because the APS says this on their own web site right?

          As for the rest….yes there are alarmists. Maybe that is because some believe the consequences of global warming, should it go too far, are alarming and they are trying to wake America out of its relative stupor. Sounding an alarm is not always a negative. If there is a fire, one pulls a fire alarm and hopes that a loud alarm goes off at the nearest fire station.

          A quiet, calm, pipe smoking academic demeanor may not get the job done here unfortunately. WAKE UP YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE may be a bit strong, but could be effective.

        • John in Oregon

          Dean

          I agree 100% with what the author said as posted:

          I disagree 100% that the author said what you misquoted him as saying.

          Its just that simple.

          • dean

            That means you are saying the APS reversed its position, which it did not do.

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)