This Oregonian headline made me laugh

The front page Oregonian headline today delivered a very humorous headline that seems to exemplify the global craziness. No, the article was not exactly embracing critics, but the headline has to make a lot of people smile.   It is like saying “crime wave” without the actual crime.   BTW, the online article headline was much different than the printed one.

This chart in the article was interesting as well.


  • Bob Clark

    You know what’s funny, too, is Oregonians’ infatuation with man-made global warming as exemplified by local Portland governance and state of Oregon governance (which is mostly an echo of Portland’s governance).  Oregon’s total man-made CO 2 emissions are relatively miniscule in the total global emissions picture, and almost as miniscule when judged relative to U.S emissions.  Oregon’s obession with man made global warming could be relatively easily solved by just planting more trees and harvesting them into (sequestering) lumber – before fire gets to the forests (better management of forests, too).  But even this is just too simple for Oregonians led around by the Democrat cocktail crowd.  Nope, it’s the case of:  don’t waste an opportunity to expand government, and dis-empower the individual.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Reminiscent of other ludicrous phrases we seem to accept now, such as “jobless recovery”.

  • valley person

    And it made you laugh because you can’t connect 2 dots. The average temperature of the last 10 years was the highest in recorded history, but the highest temperature did not exceed the very extreme el nino year of 1998.

    In other words, its still warming as measured by the decade.

    • Ramalama

      VP, you don’t expect actual THINKING by people who write for Oregon Catalyst, do you? 

      8 of the 10 hottest years since 1895 have been in the last 13 years. That seems like something to be concerned about, but here at OC it’s evidence of “cooling.”

      • valley person

         Remember when the deniers ranted on how the temperature measurements couldn’t be right because of all the parking lots that built up around the weather stations?

        I guess we haven’t built any parking lots in the last 10 years.

    • guest

      Voluminous PERSonality:  Suggest you remand your belittle accounting over to Chuck Wiese – and later after be refresher coursed, take to some good advice you seem markedly short sheeted from:


      • guest


        • guest

          Gee, aren’t you given to sign in with a capital G, stringer?

  • Climateboy

    Remember this folks. Global warming causes cooling. Everyone knows this and accepts it as fact. Global warming is causing everything from earthquakes to blizzards and hurricanes and everything bad.
    We must go back to the days of horseback or we will all die.

  • Climateboy

    If only the selfish yuppies in Oregon would use the light rail more we could solve this problem. Instead, they drive their little Volvos all over the place (a Ford product, by the way) and cause global warming taking their spoiled kids to some stupid soccer game.

  • Ripley

    You have to be one of the dumbest saps around. 
    Highlighting a 10 year period along the crest of a long warming period as evidence of continued warming is NOT connecting 2 dots. 

    It is asinine. 

    As the graph above displays the years since 1998 have been cooling in Oregon, Cooling in the US and flat globally. 

    If you can’t understand and accept what that graph displays then you should probably just shut your pie hole or come up with some other nonsense. 

    Now riddle me this,  If the last 13 years is duplicated over the next 10 or so what will be your take? That the last 23 years is the warmest in history so it must still be warming?  

    • valley person

       I am so dumb I think every major scientific academy on the planet is correct in their interpretation of global warming.

      And you are so smart you know more than they do.

      To your question. If there is “no warming” over the next 10 years, I will want to hear from science for an explanation.

      Now let me ask you something. Why do you believe the temperature data the experts have published is correct, if you didn’t believe it before? 

  • Ripley

    You’re not paying attention. Try and stay focused without drifting. 
    I specifically addressed your 2 dots which do not connect.
    There is no major scientific academy on the planet who makes those dots connect.  
    Using 10 years  during a crest in temperature would of course be the warmest 10 years.  Why is it you read more into that than it is? 
    One can accept a dot that the last 10 years was the warmest 10 years on record but that does not connect to a dot meaning there “is still warming as measured by the decade.”  It just means those 10 years were warm. Not warming. 
    “still warming” requires actual warming.  
    Presuming the above is reliable there was no warming from 98 to 11.  
    Moving forward you shouldn’t need a scientist to point out there’s a problem for the CO2 emissions=warming theory if the next ten years duplicates the last 10. 
    And it won’t take the whole 10 years to recognize there needs to be a re-evaluation of CO2 influences used in the climate models if this trend keeps up as CO2 increases.
    I don’t necessarily believe all of the temperature data the experts have published. 
    I was presuming this temperature data to be real for the sake of discussion.

    • Crabman34

      And the crux of the denier argument: “I don’t necessarily believe all of the temperature data the experts have published.”

      This is why these people shouldn’t even be bothered with (let alone plying them with pleas for logical or rational thinking).  Peer-reviewed science is subject to belief or non-belief.  That’s why Ripley gets to call this a “crest” without knowing what the other side looks like.  What if it’s a “pause?”  Or maybe it’s a “plateau!”  Perhaps it is a “hiatus.”  Who knows, really, but the last ten years isn’t really the point, the last century shows climate change is happening.  And focusing on “warming” ignores all the other impacts of climate change that are happening (more intense and frequent hurricanes, night tornadoes, huge rainfall events, flooding in Asia).It isn’t really worth responding because people like Ripley will invoke “climate-gate” and say they don’t believe the science.But who cares what I think, I am just one of those liberals who *wants* to expand government and take away personal liberty.  Because for some reason, unlike the self-interested individual you Hayek-ites say I am, I want to take away my own power and limit my own freedom.

  • Ripley

    No that is not a crux at all.
    There is easily more to presume we are witnessing a “crest” than a pause or “hiatus.”  
    The point is the 10 years certainly does not signal continued warming as dot to dot vp suggested. 
    Call it anything you want but using the 10 years of a peak or top of slope for evidence of continued warming is dopey at best.  
    You’ve bought into every concocted tale. 
    Sure the last century shows climate change is happening.  Just like every century before it. 
    You desire to divert away from warming and onto other fabrications is a hoot.  The other weather observations are not impacts of out modeled climate change. There are no more “intense and frequent hurricanes, night tornadoes, huge rainfall events, flooding in Asia” than any other random 100 years. 
    You’ve been misled into believing these are new and terrible consequences related to our human causes. 
    Pull out of it pal. 
    The immense resources your foolish left wing want to waste chasing this boogeyman will mean huge pain and no gain. 
    If you want to take away your own power and limit your own freedom find a way to do so without taking away affordable energy and the resources for genuine progress. 

    • Crabman34

      What?  Please explain all these ridiculous assumptions.  I said that the crux of your argument is that you believe some data and not other data and that the lens through which you view data is not “science” or “objectivity” but whether it fits your ideological worldview.

      Tell me what exactly it means that there is “easily more to presume” we are witnessing a crest?  What data do you base this on?

      And every century before the last has had warming?  That’s interesting, and a departure from your denialist friends who point out periods of cooling in recent centuries.  When did the warming start in your mind?

      My desire to “divert” from warming reflects the fact that global warming is an imperfect descriptor for what happens when we emit too many greenhouse gasses.  Ignoring that science is dopey at best, to use your eloquent phrasing.

      It’s funny that I’m the one who has bought into something but have the conclusions of science on my side.  Meanwhile you are the realist, the guardian of objectivity and yet you point to no data, no proof, no underlying support for you assertions.  You simply say what you think is true, and, voila, it is!  Magical thinking must be wonderful.

      I won’t bother pointing to the evidence that climate change includes more extreme weather events because you’ll either dismiss the authorities as Obama’s agencies (must be wrong) or international organizations (part of the NWO!).  Or else you’ll just *say* that I’m wrong to prove me wrong.  

    • Crabman34

      So are the moderators removing my comments now?

      • No comments have been removed that I’m aware of – but you’re the 2nd person to report not having a comment show up today. I’ll have our tech person check to see if there’s a problem.

        • Crabman34

          Weird.  It showed up briefly and then a few hours later it wasn’t there.  And then this morning it was.  Not sure what’s going on.

          • guest

             The daily dead fish wrapper pull posts frequently – sometimes even some from what’s left of US if the language runs afoul of the FCC’s no-no’s. 

  • Ripley

    Crab.Are you messed up or what?You said climate change is happening, I said like every century before and then you claimed I said warming like every century before.Typical alarmist process. No ability to maintain any coherent focus.Your foolish broadbrush generalization of criticisim by skeptics is a concocted version for your own brain to process. No where but in your mind is there a simple “believe some data and not other data” scenario you are babbling about. The totality of analysis by skeptics is obviously too deep for you to grasp. Primarily because, although healthy in skepticism, it is in fact objective, without any ideological bend and considers all that the AGW team produces. Of course the “crest” notion is speculative. However. like all other alarmists there is abundant information that you don’t keep up on. You rank and file warmers don’t consume the whole spectrum of analysis and discussion.So you don’ understand and compose your own little versions of all things skeptical.Naturally you think you have science on your side. After years of consuming the political science of it all while ignoring the weaknesses and flaws of the real science you can’t communicate well. Yep you have bought into every piece of it and you’re confident you’ve simply been adhering to the best practices and data available. BS.For comfort you chant there is no data, no proof, no underlying support for skeptic’s assertions.  That’s what happens when you hang out on these blogs and hide from the whole spectrum of widely available critique of your foolish AGW movement. You then pretend the skeptics side is nothing but “Magical thinking”.The perfect example is your naivety that our routine climate change includes more extreme weather events. Historical analysis has shown that to be thoroughly wrong. But as usual you silly alarmists think all of it should be moved over and delivered to these blogs because you are too inept to venture out and consume where it is already displayed, discussed and gaining steam as your IPCC collapses. You can’t even be told where to go dive into the honest discussions because your Joe Romm mind immediately coils up to avoid going where you’ll be embarrassed by reality.So keep hiding and playing.      

    • Crabman34

      Honestly, this makes no sense.  I simply asked for some data you could point to to support your arguments.  This is just a rant of ad hominem attacks.  Please articulate your points rather than call me foolish, naive, silly, dishonest . . .
      As someone who has spent over a decade consuming the “real” science while earning bachelors and masters degrees in earth science, I don’t really see why you think I am only consuming biased political science (whatever that means).  I guess it suits your worldview to think of me as a “mere” blog commenter who knows nothing.  Sorry, though, you’re wrong. I don’t even know where to start in responding to things like this: “The totality of analysis by skeptics is obviously too deep for you to grasp. Primarily because, although healthy in skepticism, it is in fact objective, without any ideological bend and considers all that the AGW team produces.”

      An attempt at reply would ask you what the totality of analysis by skeptics is.  Is this a peer-reviewed paper?  A literature review?  A poster presentation?  A blog?  What totality?  And it’s funny that you call the vast majority of scientists a “team.”

      I’ll admit that I said warming and you said climate change.  Whatever, I made a typo.  My point still holds.  I don’t get what you mean when you say that every century has had climate change.  Define your terms.  Are you talking about weather?What historical analysis do you speak of when you say that routine climate change includes more extreme weather events?  What is “routine climate change?”  Are you trying to make a point about Milankovitch cycles?Why don’t you try explaining what you mean rather continuing with the ad hominem attacks and the because-I-say-so fallacies?

    • valley person

       Ripley, you select the data that you believe when it bolsters your point, and reject the data when it doesn’t. That allows you to make any argument you like and say it is supported by data.

      You express skepticism about the temperature data, but then point to the temp data since 1998 as proof the world is no longer warming. If that same data showed steady warming, you would simply dismiss the temp data.

      Global temperatures are not expected to go up steadily year by year by climate scientists. There are lots of other factors that can make any given year, or set of years, “cooler”.

      It may well be that climate scientists under estimated some of these mitigating factors. But its highly unlikely they hve miscalculated the long term impact of adding greenhouse gasses to a very thin blanket of air.

      Your entire “analysis” is out of synch with science. You may think you know more than the entire scientific establishment, but I am a skeptic about that.

      If our present temp plateau is followed by a resumption of increased temps, with say 3 of the next 10 years rising above the 98 level, and if the average of the next 10 is higher than the last, would YOU then accept the thesis as reality? Or would you go back to arguing that NASA is fudging the data?