The Devastating Economic Costs of Cap-and-Trade

Cascade Policy Institute has released a detailed economic analysis of the challenges of achieving Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies: The Economic and Fiscal Impact Challenges discusses the current goals in place and the possible effects of instituting the Western Climate Initiative’s (WCI) cap-and-trade program to help reach those goals.

Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies: The Economic and Fiscal Impact Challenges was written and prepared under a contract between Cascade Policy Institute and QuantEcon, Inc. and authored by Randall J. Pozdena, Ph.D., president of QuantEcon Inc., and Eric Fruits Ph.D., President of Economics International.

This analysis was undertaken in order to assess the quantifiable and measurable costs in the debate on whether to implement a cap-and-trade program or any other wide-ranging greenhouse gas reduction strategy in the state of Oregon. Pozdena and Fruits examine the extensive fiscal and economic costs that could be incurred if Oregon’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals are met.

“[“¦T]he benefits and costs of [greenhouse gas reduction] policy should be carefully calculated before imposing what otherwise will be a significant economic burden on economic activity,” argue Pozdena and Fruits.

Some of their findings include:

“¢ “Economic vitality, energy use and carbon dioxide emissions have been tightly cointegrated historically, and energy strongly “˜causes’ economic vitality. This is true both in studies over time and across countries.”

“¢ “Oregon’s economic growth to 2020 would be approximately cut in half, and gross output per capita would be reduced by 20 percent relative to the baseline case.” Under greenhouse gas reductions the Oregon economy would only grow $58.9 billion, compared to the baseline case of $107.2 billion. This means that businesses and industry may be no longer competitive in Oregon and move elsewhere, creating job losses and undue financial burden on Oregonians.

“¢ “Under Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction goal, 2020 employment would be 1.92 million, or 90,000 less than baseline projections.” Not only could this drastically hurt Oregon families by losing family-wage jobs, but it also could put an extra strain on state revenue programs such as unemployment insurance.

“¢ “State and local revenues would be reduced by about 13 percent, relative to the baseline case.” The authors estimate that 2020 state and local revenues will be $4.4 billion dollars less under greenhouse gas reductions, making it even more difficult to fund social programs and help lower-income households adapt to the significantly higher fuel and energy prices.

“Absent adoption of silver-bullet, low cost/high effectiveness technological innovations, the costs to the Oregon economy of meeting the WCI emissions curtailment goal are large,” conclude Pozdena and Fruits.

Because both cap-and-trade and carbon tax policies have implementation issues and risk imposing costs greater than their benefits, the authors offer an alternative plan that contains both economic and environmental benefits. The authors advocate implementation of a congestion pricing system that resolves a pricing error on the highway system which wastes valuable time and fuel. By correcting this pricing error, congestion pricing is a carbon reduction policy option that can strengthen the economy while helping to resolve carbon emissions problems associated with excess congestion, travel, and stop-and-go vehicle use.


Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s free market public policy research and educational organization based in Portland. For more information on this analysis, please contact Todd Wynn at (503) 242-0900.

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

Posted by at 03:45 | Posted in Measure 37 | 118 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • jim karlock

    I have to disagree with those estimates. Here’s why:

    They assume that we can make a transition to renewable sources of electricity. But there are none. Where will the power come from? I hear the following not ready for primetinme suggestions. Always with a promise that we just need to spend a little more money to make it happen.

    *1. Solar* – Current cost about 5-10x that of coal. Are you ready for $500/month electric bills or turn off lights to the point where you only use 10% of your current usage. BTW, that megawatt solar plant is really only 1/3 megawatt because it is only lit up 1/3 of the day on cloudless days. Where do we get power the rest of the day? From fossil fuels or hydro.

    *2. Wind.* Only available when wind blows. Rest of time we need fossil or hydro. Europe is finding that wind saves no fossil fuel due to system considerations.

    *3. Hydro* – Hydro is not renewable by definition.

    *4. Nuclear* – Nuclear is virtually banned.

    *5 Wave/tidal* – A mere dream. In earliest stages of development. The Gov’ plan is to have us use 44% less in just 12 years. This WILL NOT be ready in time.

    *Here is the key part:* The Gov’s plan is to let the price of carbon rise WITHOUT LIMIT until consumption drops by 44% in 12 years, where will the price land when there is NO NEW SUPPLY and existing SUPPLY IS CUT 44%?
    Double?
    Triple?

    *Key item 2* Remember all that talk about spending money to make it happen: who is going to pay that money?
    Hint: YOU AND ME.

    I think the energy cost will MORE THAN double. Where will you set your thermostat in the winter to cut your gas consumption in ½? How many coats will you wear indoors?

    How much will gas have to cost to force you to drive 44% less? $5/gal didn’t do it. Maybe $7/gal? $10/gal?

    This plan will put Oregon solidly in Sam Adam’s dream world of the 1920’s with its accompanying poverty and early deaths. But some consider that a good thing.

    Thanks
    JK

  • jim karlock

    For the warmer trolls:
    Before you tell us that man is causing global warming, please show us the peer-reviewed papers that prove that CO2 is even capable of causing dangerous warming. (There appear to be none!)

    Thanks
    JK

  • Anonymous

    Hey Jim, having lived without commercial electricity for about 20 years, I can tell you it’s almost cheaper to set up your own for your own use. Course gotta get used to dull lights though. I wonder what they would do if we all did that?

    • jim karlock

      You forgot to tell us how you power your refrigerator, stove, computer, DVD player, TV and a few other things.

      How does that compare with the typical home of 1920?

      What is your actual cost per kw-hr (including up to code equipment purchase and installation)

      Thanks
      JK

      • dean

        The authors of the report do not take issue with the fact of man-caused global warming. I guess that is something of a breakthrough and negates JK’s persistent calls to prove it to him.

        I think the report raises legitimate issues. I do have a few quibbles however.

        1) If the westen states cap and trade occurs within the context of a national or even global cap and trade, then companies won’t have much incentive to migrate to regions or nations that lack regulations. Given the results of our election, I think we are going to get a national and international agreement sooner rather than later.

        2) The authors neglect the Portland experience. Significant population and economic growth since 1990 with minimal increase in CO2 emissions. How did that happen? Probably due to lots of things, but it points to a lot of slack in the system, meaning a lot of energy burned wastefully rather than out of economic necessity.

        3) The solution…congestion pricing. One comes to believe that to the Cascade Policy Institute, the only tool they have is a hammer so every problem becomes a nail. Transportation amounts to only about 40% of CO2 emissions in Oregon. Other solutions, like increased energy efficientcy of buildings are also thus needed to get anywhere near the oals of the program.

        4) The authors neglect to address the recent and probably future volatility of fossil fuel prices, particularly oil, regardless of whether we Cap and Trade. When, not if oil goes back up to $150 or more a barrel, that would also reduce GDP in Oregon. We likely don’t have the luxury of waiting for the market to solve the problem, in my humble opinion.

        • jim karlock

          *Dean: * The authors of the report do not take issue with the fact of man-caused global warming. I guess that is something of a breakthrough and negates JK’s persistent calls to prove it to him.
          *JK:* No it does not. They are just dealing with the political reality of living in irrational times where people like you and Dave can spread fear based on superstition. Happened before (witch trials, eugenics) and will happen again.

          Hey Dean! *we are still waiting for you to substantiate your scare mongering with some peer reviewer papers that prove CO2 an cause dangerous warming.*

          *Why are you avoiding this? Is it because you know your scaremongering is based on a wish for modern society of vanish and global warming is just a convenient vehicle to that goal?*

          Thanks
          JK

          • David Appell

            JK wrote:
            > Before you tell us that man is causing global warming,
            > please show us the peer-reviewed papers that prove that
            > CO2 is even capable of causing dangerous warming.

            Jim, this has been answered many times — is it really all you got?

            “Dangerous” is not a scientific term, but one of values. It is not even a universal term — what may be dangerous to one person or group may not be for another — it may even be beneficial to them, in some sense.

            So, of course science cannot answer such a question. All the science can do is make projections based on assumptions.

            Define “dangerous” in precise scientific terms, and state your assumptions about the future (economic, technological, demographic, etc.) and science can begin to undertake your question.

      • Anonymous

        I used a Propane refrigerator, and we used wood heat, but could have used Propane. We used a power convertor to run the smaller electrical appliances. Anything with a heating element, with the setup we had usually required a generator. We also had an 18000 generator, but didn’t use it unless it was needed. Our lights were 12 volt. That was my biggest complaint, because we didn’t have a complete solar setup.

        There are companies that sell the things you need.

        It’s more expensive than we are used to, but if a person is into that type of thing, you can spend some money and set up a complete solar home. When we were living like that you could spend about $10,000 to set up a small home. I’m sure it’s a lot more than that now, but would have included batteries, solar panels, trackers and invertor.

        It was ok, and a challenge to live like that, wouldn’t have missed it. Truthfully, there is nothing like light switches and violla, there is light.

  • John in Oregon

    JK, interesting you pointed out Sam Adams dream of a 1920’s world.

    That’s the era of the 1925 Federal Reserve loose money roaring 20’s. The sudden FED tightening of money which caused the 1929 stock market crash. The Hover and FDR trade barriers and tax increases which turned the recession into a depression. The Government works projects and Keynesian Economic Theory of spending out of a depression that brought about the 1937 crash of the United States industrial sector.

    Both an unattractive and clearly relevant reference.

    • dean

      Jim,,,its remarks like comparing global warming to Salem witch trials that blow your credibility all to hell. Do you really believe *there is no science whatsoever* that links a rise in greenhouse gasses to fossil fuel burning and to an already measured rise in global temperature? Or are you simply unconvinced there is ENOUGH evidence to justify public policies like the one addressed here?

      No one can provide you 100% proof of what will happen in the future Jim, and that is what you have been asking for.

      John…do you relly mean the FED *caused* the stock market to crash in 29, or do you mean they may have *prolonged the depression* by tightening money after the crash? I’m just asking for clarification, not picking an argument.

      • jim karlock

        *Dean:* Do you really believe there is no science whatsoever that links a rise in greenhouse gasses to fossil fuel burning and to an already measured rise in global temperature?
        *JK:* Where is the evidence? You don’t seem to have any – just like nobody else does. This smells like a case of the emperor has no clothes – everybody just assumes that the other guy has checked the evidence and no one has (except the lying profiteers behind this scam.)

        Why don’t you just find the evidence?

        *If you have evidence that CO2 can cause dangerous warming, show us. Otherwise quit spreading your baseless superstitions.*

        *Dean:* Or are you simply unconvinced there is ENOUGH evidence to justify public policies like the one addressed here?
        *JK:* How much evidence does it take to justify destroying industrialized society, putting millions in poverty and letting millions more die in poverty? All the while enriching Al Gore and his Wall Street buddies.

        *What is really amazing is that you have apparently never looked for the evidence to support your passionate belief.*

        Thanks
        JK

      • todd

        Dean,

        Whether you believe global warming or you don’t, whether you believe man has a measurable influence or not, you have to assess the benefits and costs of strategies like cap and trade. The WCI and its advocates do not talk about environmental benefits, they only talk about the emotional side of the issue. They prefer to charge ahead to “save” the planet yet they have no idea how the plan will “save” the planet.

        I would never state that man has no influence on the globe and I don’t think Jim would either. The magnitude of such influence is up for debate however. The authors of this report did not get involved in this debate. I, as well as others, have already realized that the train has left the station for many ill informed policy makers and citizens such as yourself. This report is to inform people that there are substantial costs involved in implementing a program of this magnitude.

        Now let’s talk about benefits.

        If all states included in the WCI cap and trade scheme completely reduced their emissions to zero immediately and continued this into the future(this is well beyond the scope of the WCI plan as of now), by 2050 there would only be a .0139 degree Celsius drop in global temperature. By 2100, there would be a mere .0208 degree Celsius drop, barely enough to even accurately measure.

        Is this worth the cost?

        Cap and trade is an all pain no gain strategy. Charging ahead with no regard to the immense cost and no regard to the nonexistent environmental benefit is irrational.

        Dean, you and I have something in common. We want to see the successful evolution of the planet and we want to see humans coexisting and living sustainably on this planet now and in the future.

        Let’s approach this with some sense and reason however.

        • dean

          OK…we agree on some. We also disagree on some.

          I’m not an expert on global warming or economics and don’t pretend to be. I read, digest, and try to make sense out of it all. My undertanding is there is a time lag between CO2 that goes up into the atmosphere and temperatures rising. So as you say, if we stopped ALL CO2 emissions tomorrow, which no one is even suggesting, we would still have some rise in temperature from past emissions.

          The issue is that a doubling of CO2 is expected to result in an increase temperature of 3 deg C. What the Western Climate initiative is trying to acheive is the regional share of CO2 reductions needed to hit this mark. And the longer we wait, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere to deal with.

          Cap and Trade is not “all pain and no gain.” It may be too much pain for too little gain, especially if it is poorly designed or managed. The study by Podenza and Fruits should be submitted for peer review and be evaluated along with all the other studies on tehheconomics of dealing with global warming. I’m not qualified to pass judgement on its accuracy or relevance.

          But I don’t know of anyone in positions of authority on this issue who don’t apply sense and reason. They are not just making stuff up. Kulongowski cares as much about the economy of the state as you do. Its a huge problem and there is not going to be a pain free solution. There may not even be any solution beyond paring back on energy use altogether. Or we could pretend there is no problem and just keep doing what we are doing.

          • jim karlock

            *Dean:* Or we could pretend there is no problem and just keep doing what we are doing.
            *JK:* Or we could look at the actual evidence and discover whether or not there is a problem.

            Why are you afraid to do this? Is it because you might find that there is no problems? Makes one think you are salivating over punishing people for their alleged environmental sins and living the good life of prosperity.

            Thanks
            JK

          • todd

            Dean,

            I am glad that you try to educate yourself on these important issues. I understand that you are neither a climatologist nor an economist.

            You are correct. It has been found that CO2 lags temperature change. Meaning that global temperatures rise and then co2 concentrations rise. This is mainly due to the ocean releasing Co2 when temperatures rise. Causation is very different than correlation. The figures I displayed are not due to the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere due to past emissions but the actual effect of human caused co2. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and yes greenhouse gases lead to warming. How much is the question?

            A doubling of CO2 if it were to occur would tend to cause an increase in temperature of about a half of degree Celsius. The only way to get extreme changes from that doubling of CO2 is if you have feedback. So that CO2 changes slightly increase temperature which cause increase in moisture capacity of the atmosphere which means that the air can hold more water vapor and it is the water vapor that is the main greenhouse gas. The idea is that the little change in CO2 causes an increase in water vapor. The problem is at the same time it increases cloudiness because there is more moisture. But nobody knows how to model clouds in a climate model so that gets set aside. So we have the positive feedback but not the negative feedback and therefore it is sort of like this runaway system that is predicted and from that we get these huge predictions for future warming based on this rather subtle increase in CO2.

            I have personally worked with scientists and climatologists at the Hadley centre in the UK which is one of the leading climate modeling centers in the world while doing climate change impact research in India. They readily admit to me that climate models are not to be used to drive public policy. They are useful in helping to understand some of the complex interactions in the earth’s climate but they are far from perfect. Climate models leave out many feedbacks that are not fully understood. The main feedback is the formation of low level clouds that contribute significantly to the cooling of the earth.

            In addition, carbon dioxide is a relatively benign greenhouse gas and humans do play a very minor role in the entire co2 emitted or sequestered on a global level. Beyond this, it has been proven that there is a saturation effect of co2 in the atmosphere. Each additional amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not lead equal amounts of warming. It is a concept known by economists as diminishing marginal returns. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the less effect each additional carbon dioxide molecule has on global temperatures.

            The truth is that we do not know much about the complex interactions between the cryosphere, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. Making a model to describe all processes on earth is not useless, but it certainly should not be used to drive policy that will drastically change the way we live on earth and potentially negatively affect the well being and livelihoods of humans.

          • David Appell

            > The truth is that we do not know much about the
            > complex interactions between the cryosphere, the
            > atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

            We do not know everything, we we do know some things. And those things — based on rather simple physics — indicate that anthropogenic greenhouse gases could well be a big problem for the planet in the future, causing (along with other anthropogenic factors) far more than 0.5 C warming.

            You will never get a precise answer. It isn’t scientifically possible — the system is too complex. So is the human body. We have very little understand of brain functions, or of the mind/body relationship, or of some other bodily, cellular, and genetic factors. We don’t even know how many genes a human has. That doesn’t mean you don’t take an aspirin when you have a headache.

            So, failing precise knowledge (and, in any case, the ability to accurately forecast the future demographic, economic, political and technological factors), what do you do? Wait a few hundred years until perhaps we can accurately predict such things, or use the best science you have at the moment to try and figure out what’s likely (or even possible) to answer?

            Basic physics indicates warming. Scientists have known this for over a hundred years. And — low and behold — we have warming.

            Waiting 200 years to build a superaccurate computer program could very well be too late. How will you explain to your grandchildren?

            Just because you cannot accurately predict your future salary doesn’t mean you don’t try to save money. Or buy disability insurance. Or home insurance. Or life insurance. Or live within your means.

          • Dan

            Yes, let’s operate on the precautionary principle, the stupidest idea ever.

            Bush operated ont he precautionary principle in Iraq and look what happened.

            I suppose you support his actions as well, David?

          • David Appell

            Dan, the PP only applies to situations where there is not a scientific consensus. That isn’t the case with anthropogenic climate change.

          • Dan

            “Dan, the PP only applies to situations where there is not a scientific consensus. That isn’t the case with anthropogenic climate change”

            You are saying that the precautionary principle only applies to situations where there is not scientific consensus??? Why does Al Gore and his followers consistently state they operate on the precautionary principle.

            By the way, science isnt operated on a consensus. What kind of PHD are you?

          • David Appell

            The PP, as I know it, says that in the absence of a scientific consensus, the burden of proof of the effects of new technologies is on those who want to introduce them.

            On the other hand, in the presence of a scientific consensus, most societies rationally choose to avoid harmful technologies. Who wouldn’t, unless they had a death wish? This is exactly how our lives have gotten so much better in the last 400 years.

            Science doesn’t “operate” on consensus, but it can certainly reach a consensus. There is a consensus that Newton’s laws of motion are correct for nonrelativistic situations, and so the government doesn’t fund research into disproving them, no matter what a few crackpots say. NASA relies on this consensus every day.

            Scientists reach a consensus on an issue — there will always be some PhD somewhere who disagrees with it — and then they move forward, honing different aspects, improving them, tackling new angles, etc. This is such a consensus that anthropogenic factors, and especially manmade greenhouse gases, are largely the cause of today’s planetary warming.

          • jim karlock

            *We are still waiting for proof that CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”*

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            Jim, have you read the IPCC 4AR? That’s where all the proof is listed.

            I realize it’s much easier to parrot the same old question again and again, as if you’re something profound, but really, study a contemporary manuscript. That’s what it takes in this business. You need to think.

            Let us know when you’re done.

          • Dan

            And I am pretty sure that Congress acted on a “consensus” and said that there might be WMD in Iraq so we should move in.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* And those things — based on rather simple physics — indicate that anthropogenic greenhouse gases could well be a big problem for the planet in the future, causing (along with other anthropogenic factors) far more than 0.5 C warming
            *JK:* And it *could* not be a problem. But you want to hurt millions of people because it *could* be a problem.

            *We are still waiting for proof that co2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”*

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            Jim, have you read the IPCC 4AR?

            Really — let us know.

            I realize it’s much easier to stupidly parrot the same old question again and again, as if it’s something profound, but really, study a contemporary manuscript. That’s what it takes in this business. You need to think.

            Let us know when you’re done.

          • dean

            Todd…I don’t know where you get the 1 degree rise from a doubling of CO2. If that is the case, we can count ourselves very lucky. Bu it contradicts what the scientists way, which is a mean of 2.9 degrees C.

            Anyway, its of no use for me to debate the physics with you. Lets debate the policy implications. A political leader like Obama is also not a physicist. He/she has to rely on trusted science advisors to summarize the knows, the unknowns, and the potential physical consequences of warming. He’ll also consult his economic advisors on cost-benefits and the implications for this or that policy. Whatever they decide has to be agreed to by Congress. I trust they won’t be stupid enough to bankrupt our already bankrupt nation.

            I just heard a radio interview with Dr Richard Muller, a physics professor at UC Berkley who has written: “Physics for Future Presidents.” He says we are missing the boat on our energy discussions by overlooking the potential of conservation. We get way more reduced CO2 AND reduced cost by investing in ways to use less fossil fuel, as opposed to developing alternatives. Interesting.

          • todd

            Dean- “I don’t know where you get the 1 degree rise from a doubling of CO2”

            I got this from talking with a climatologist that happened to be researching into climate change for many years.

            Todd- “A doubling of CO2 if it were to occur would tend to cause an increase in temperature of about a half of degree Celsius. The only way to get extreme changes from that doubling of CO2 is if you have feedback.”

            Please go back and read the post. The actual DIRECT effect of Co2 doubling in the atmosphere is a 1 degree Celsius increase, the REST is due to feedbacks.

          • dean

            OK…I’ll take your word for it. Either way the actual temperature increase accepted by the world body of climate scientists is estimated to be 3 degrees, feedbacks and all. Correct?

          • todd

            “Either way the actual temperature increase accepted by the world body of climate scientists is estimated to be 3 degrees, feedbacks and all. Correct?”

            This is only with the feedbacks that climatologists and modelers understand like the increase in water vapor that warmer air can hold.

            As stated earlier, the feedbacks that actually lead to a decrease in global temperature such as the formation of clouds because of an increase in water vapor are not modeled because they are not fully understood.

            This is why the IPCC report shows these runaway climate effects. The earth is constantly searching and striving towards a remarkable equilibrium at all times. There are positive and negative feedbacks that contribute to the earth’s history of increasing and decreasing temperature.

            There have been times when co2 concentrations have been much higher than current levels and there has been times when there has been much less. To truly sum it up, co2 is not the main climate driver and humans play a minor role in the content of Co2 in the atmosphere.

            I agree we should be concerned about the possibility of a change in global temperatures. I am the first to admit, as any rational person would, we simply do not know enough.

            It is amazing to me that a lot of people believe there is a consensus. Not that science operates on a consensus as Dan states, but that people actually believe that there is only one crackpot scientist that dares to question AGW.

            Do a little digging and you will find thousands upon thousands of scientists, climatologists, modelers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists and the like that completely disagree with what you and David are saying.

            I am not discounting your views. I realize that there are people out there, for whatever motivation, that preach that global warming will bring the world to an end and humans are causing it. But you must realize that there is a significant and growing number of credible people who oppose you.

            Do the world and yourself a favor, do not follow your beliefs blindly.

          • David Appell

            Todd, it’s true that cloud physics are not very well understood. But their feedbacks can go both ways. Yes, clouds reflect heat back towards the sun, but they also trap heat from below. It’s not at all clear that their feedback is negative.

          • David Appell

            > The earth is constantly searching and
            > striving towards a remarkable equilibrium at all
            > times. There are positive and negative feedbacks
            > that contribute to the earth’s history of increasing
            > and decreasing temperature.

            The earth isn’t “searching” for anything. It only reacts to basic physics. From the study of other planets, like Venus, we know that the greenhouse gas issue can indeed “runaway.”

            Yes, Earth’s climate has never runaway before. But we are in new, perhaps unduplicated, territory. CO2 has been high in the past, but then it was naturally driven, not additionally driven by human impacts. It was not necessarily accompanied by sharp increases in methane and NO2, or by rapid deforestation and land use changes that would have otherwise sucked up carbon.

            Too, past advances in temperature were often driven by natural CO2 increases. But now it’s the reverse.

            Otherwise, you’re saying that a pendulum will rock back and forth and eventually settle to the down position, but not jump up and around its pivot. That’s true — except if there are additional external forces. Then it may well jump all around its pivot and never reach equilibrium.

            We are in unique territory here.

          • jim karlock

            *Prove that CO2 will cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”*

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            Todd wrote:
            > Do a little digging and you will find thousands
            > upon thousands of scientists, climatologists, modelers,
            > atmospheric scientists, meteorologists and the
            > like that completely disagree with what you and
            > David are saying.

            I do this digging every day, by closely monitoring the world’s journals on climate change. Rarely do I see peer-reviewed papers that imply the “consensus” is wrong.

            Sure, you will find lots of op-ed pieces by skeptics, and Web sites and op-eds like Todd’s. Those are not science. Anyone can write an op-ed — that hardly means it passes scientific muster. Todd well knows (but would probably never admit) that, if the Cascade Policy Institute is to stay in its funding game, it must promulgate ideas favorable to its funders. (Yes, one should be equally suspicious of AGW ideas from the left, who depend on donations and subscriptions from like-minded people. Greenpeace or the Sierra Club aren’t publishing science either.)

            The practice of science has rules, and they have proven themselves time and again over the last 400 years. Just look around at your rich, fecund life, for which you can largely thank science. And, yes, science overturns “accepted” ideas that are incorrect — it has done so throughout history (such as the ether, Lysenkoism, the pudding model of the atom, and on and on.) Scientists *live* to overturn ideas. But not good ideas, not right ideas, not ideas whose data satisfies their hypothesis. If AGW is incorrect, scientists will overturn it too — indeed, any scientist would LOVE to disprove this idea — he/she would instantly become famous and immortal. But, like, say, quantum mechanics, some ideas are just right and too good to be overturned. The world’s journals are waiting. The publications aren’t there.

          • todd

            David,

            “Todd well knows (but would probably never admit) that, if the Cascade Policy Institute is to stay in its funding game, it must promulgate ideas favorable to its funders.”

            The majority of our funding comes from individuals and foundation grants. Im assuming that you may believe that “big oil” gives me thousands upon thousands over dollars to denounce cap and trade. That is so far from the truth it is laughable. The funding we recieve is not given with “strings attached”.

            No matter where our donations come from, we at Cascade promote individual liberty, personal responsibility and economic opportunity. Our research is not driven in any direction by funding, we do not do quid pro quo agreements, and we do not do contract research for corporations.

            I am actually disappointed and slightly appalled that you would stoop to a level where you question my ethics and the reason for my research.

          • David Appell

            > The majority of our funding comes from individuals
            > and foundation grants. Im assuming that you may believe
            > that “big oil” gives me thousands upon thousands
            > over dollars to denounce cap and trade. That is so far
            > from the truth it is laughable. The funding we recieve is
            > not given with “strings attached”.

            I didn’t say your grants come from Big Oil, and I know they come from individuals and foundations. Very conservative, big-business-oriented individuals and foundations, some of whom themselves are, in-turn, funded by Big Oil and other traditional energy companies.

            The likes of Scaife (or whoever — those types) are not funding CPI because your independent analyses show that single-payer health care would serve far more Americans at a far lower per-capita price. Or because your analyses show that Portland has, in fact, cut back on GHGs. Or because personal freedom and liberty might be more curtailed by our governments inability to ultimately deal with the global warming problem.

            For example, though I’m still studying it, your recent CPI study by QuantEcon does not, as far as I can tell (and I’m still studying it, so correct me if I’m wrong) consider the possible large deleterious impacts on OR’s economy due to a 2-4-6 C warming — to the timber industry, to the fishing industry, to the skiing industry, to the agriculture industry, to the tourism industry, to the energy industry (as we’ll all need to be using A/Cs at +6C) and so on. Maybe OR will get relatively lucky — does that mean we’ll suffer a relatively large number of climate refugees? How will that impact the state?

            And so on and so on. I’m amazed at CPI’s confidence in economic models decades out when you and other skeptics are questioning climate models decades out. Is the climate really that much more complicated than that economy? That is far from obvious.

            “Liberty” can be restricted in many ways, sometimes as the result of govt action, and sometimes by the lack of govt action.

          • jim karlock

            Hi David.
            *We are all still waiting for you top show us the proof that CO2 can actually cause meaningful warming.*

            Thanks
            JK

          • todd

            I can tell you havent gotten far on the study but I appreciate that you are beginning to read it.

            David- “Does the study consider the possible large deleterious impacts on OR’s economy due to a 2-4-6 degree C warming?”

            CPI Study-
            Intro- Pg. 2 “This report focuses on the economic and fiscal impacts of state climate change policies rather than on potential climate change itself or issues of forecasting this change.”

            Intro- Pg.2 “The benefits of reduced emissions could include avoided economic damage that may result from changing climate conditions. On the other hand, actions to address climate change would impose costs because most emissions stem from the combustion of fossil fuels, which constitute the majority of the nation’s energy supply. This study focuses on the potential costs
            of Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.”

            Intro – Pg. 2 “The focus on potential costs is not because we are uninterested in the benefits of a reduced carbon dioxide burden in the atmosphere. Rather, amongst economists there is greater potential to accurately measure costs associated with reduced fossil fuel energy use than the benefits.”

            Executive Summary- Pg. 1 “Unfortunately, the projections of future climate change are highly uncertain,1 and the associated future economic benefits more uncertain still. Consequently, this paper does not engage that debate.”

            David- “And so on and so on. I’m amazed at CPI’s confidence in economic models decades out when you and other skeptics are questioning climate models decades out. Is the climate really that much more complicated than that economy?”

            Please read Page 8 for how the study was undertaken.

            CPI Study-“In addition, simulation models are presumptive in their structure and content, calling into question whether the relationships and associated predictions are reliable and unbiased.”

            The study does not use an economic modeling tool like IMPLAN or the ENERGY 2020 model of the WCI. If you had read the paper you would see that the predictions for future GDP/growth, employment, and state/local revenues is built off of historic and current data from Oregon. This data was used to develop relationships between energy use, carbon dioxide emissions, gdp/growth, and population. These relationships are used to predict the future scenario.

            In addition to not using models such as the climate models you love so much, these climate models are predicting events in 2100, the CPI study is predicted changes in 2020, 12 years away.

          • Chuck Wiese

            Dean: This is poppycock. This entire business of absorbing IR energy from CO2 causing a global warming is one of the worst contortions and misrepresentations of physics I have ever seen. There are so many inaccuracies an falsehoods about this I don’t know where to begin.

            The bottom line is that there is NO CONSENSUS about global warming from Co2 that has much meaning to it. The entire argument has been around whether there is any increased IR absorption at the wings or sidebands of the main spectral line that is found around 15 microns of wavelength.

            To begin with, that assumptiion under earth atmospheric pressures is highly speculative. It is calculated out in programs such as MODTRAN but IT HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED IN THE REAL ATMOSPHERE FROM THE RISING CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.

            Second and most important are the spectral densities at these wavelengths. A quanta of energy at 15 microns is an exceedingly small amount of energy equal to .0826 eV, or 30 times less quanta than visible light, and 3 times less than an absorption band at 5.5 microns, a typical absorbing wavelength of water vapor.

            In the heiarchy of things, CO2 IS NOT the most powerful absorber of IR energy, water vapor and clouds are. They are totaly dominant over the CO2 flux and are completely controlling the modification of the earths IR radiation field.

            This being said, CO2 does not and cannot cause global temperature variations as claimed by the poor and unsatisfactory practices of climate scientists and their apparent misuse of basic physics employed in climate models.

            Global temperatures are now in clear decline and have been since 2001 as CO2 concentrations continue upward in the atmosphere. The climate models are complete and object failures qnd it is no surprise to meteorologists. I have followed these arguments from the beginnings twenty years ago and have never seen such an abuse and horrid application of science ever.

            And the fact that AGW supporters such as yourself refuse to accept your erroneous ways leads me to the conclusion that none of this AGW crap was ever based upon sound science. Just follow the money. The benneficiaries of this gravy train of government money goes to universities as research grants and special interest groups ( such as public employee groups ) and “green energy” brokers who are all clamoring for position to cash in. It would be one thing if you guys could produce your revenues self sufficiently, but this is tied around the desire for government to mandate everything and to make it worse, I get nothing for the taxes that you want to impose to ” save me from myself” and I have to buy “green products” to reduce my “carbon footprint”.

            Those of us who see this sham and bad science are not going to let this go down without a nasty battle. I am not in the mood to have more of my hard earned cash pimped out of my pocket by this fraudulent scam.

            Chuck F. Wiese

          • David Appell

            Chuck wrote:
            > In the heiarchy of things, CO2 IS NOT the most
            > powerful absorber of IR energy, water vapor and clouds are.
            > They are totaly dominant over the CO2 flux and are
            > completely controlling the modification of the earths IR
            > radiation field.

            Of course — ever undergraduate climate science major knows this. No scientist disputes that water vapor is the most important GHG. It is built into all their models. Stop trying to imply otherwise.

            But, water vapor is relatively constant. but CO2 (and methane and NO2) are not — they are being forced upward by humans. This additional forcing is what is causing AGW.

            And global temperature are not “clearly in decline.” Perhaps this year is slightly cooler than last year, or even a few years ago, but that says absolutely nothing about climate. Does the fact that today is warmer than yesterday mean winter is over? No.

            Climate is a long-term phenomenon. And this trend continues upward. It may have plateaued for a few years here — it also did about three times since 1976. You could have made the same “global cooling” argument then. And you would have been wrong each time.

            If you want to prove we are now global cooling, show us your calculations and models that show the factors that are causing this. Skeptics have no such calculations or models. They have no accepted science that shows that natural forces should now be leading to a cooking, or, more importantly, that natural factors have caused the significant warming since about 1976 (or, if you want, about 1900). Climate scientists have added up all these natural factors as best they can, and found that they do not explain the warming of the last few decades. Only when anthropogenic emissions are factored in can they explain them.

          • chuck wiese

            David: Don’t try and turn this around without answering my earlier questions.
            1. Where are your measurements of additional radiative forcing by CO2?
            I know it has not been measured for the reasons I already gave.
            2. The global temperature decline was a total missed and erroneous projection by global climate models. They DID NOT forecast any cooling to occur as CO2 continued to increase.
            3. That very fact invalidates all of the preposterous claims you make that climate models have ANY forecasting skill. Any meteorologist could tell you that a climate model is a scientific farce and improper application of time integrations to accurately track anything.
            4. water vapor is anything but constant. It varies widely from place to place and day to day depending on position and altitude. There is no way you can accurately model it, especially in dealing with phase change.
            5. The amount of Co2 increase in the atmosphere at any conceivable earth concentration and atmospheric pressure is irrelevant to the bigger picture and that is water vapors total radiative dominance over CO2.
            6. Skeptics are smart enough to know in working with short term models that involve general weather forecasting that what you propose to be scientific reality in constructing any coupled earth atmospheric model thyat attempts to make a statement about the earths climate or temperatures years ahead in time is a scientific farce and absurdity. It cannot be done with current mathematical methods regardless of computing power and for you not to understand this reveals ignorance.
            7. The basic calculations do not support any contention that increasing CO2 in the conveivable earth concentrations, past or present would create any radiative forcing capable of inducing climate change. The GCM model construction needs to feed off of water vapor “feedback” to create warming, a long term scenario that could never exist in reality.
            8. Climate modeling not only completely missed tracking of global temperatures since 2001, it made a huge error in the tropical ocean mid troposphere that is the signature of the entire hypothesis from water vapor feedback. Significant warming was forecast by the model in the 7Km region which not only did not materialize, but the tropical troposphere has also cooled rather than warmed.

            These are significant errors in the models you trust that should lead any scientist back to the drawing board. They are total failures to the theory. If CO2 is not tracking temperature as it is not, your theory has just been flushed down the canner. Please expalin to this site why temperatures are in decline and the models were wrong.

            The short answer is Co2’s radiative forcing does not modify the IR radiation field of the earth and all of your assumptions were wrong from day one. This is because the founding physics were never refuted, but supplanted with the current absurdities.

            Chuck F. Wiese

          • David Appell

            Chuck,

            The IPCC 4AR section 1.4.1 discusses the history of the understanding of the radiative forcings of GHGs. This is soundly established science. (But I would be interested in scientific publications that show these conclusions are false.)

            David

          • chuck wiese

            David: The IPCC is not a scientific body. It is a body of nations government beauracrats who decide what is accepted and published. It is far from objectivity in science.

          • David Appell

            Chuck, you are again wrong. No IPCC official/diplomat/bureaucrat writes anything that is not approved by the scientists writing the IPCC chapters. This has been repeatedly stressed on Realclimate.org, several of whose members have actually written sections of the IPCC *AR, and several of whom I know and have interviewed.

          • Chuck Wiese

            David: BS! You are wrong. I have talked with and confered with many Phd’s who submitted anti AGW papers whose work was either changed without their knowledge or rejected without adequate explanation. While there is a “peer review” body, supposedly with scientific review, any anti AGW work is never published by the IPCC. This is not science objectivity, it is bullying and forcing out any discension.The scientific panel is in over its head and pressured to reject any opinion that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

            Chuck F. Wiese

          • David Appell

            Chuck wrote:
            > While there is a “peer review” body, supposedly
            > with scientific review, any anti AGW work is never
            > published by the IPCC.

            Then how was McIntyre & McKitrick published in E&E (v16, n1, 2005) and GRL (v32, p L03710, 2005)?

            E&E contains papers all the time that dispute the consensus on AGW. How do you explain that?

          • David Appell

            Chuck, I do not have the time to correct you on any scientific point you might raise.

            Please, provide us with scientific articles that demonstrate your points. Show us where conventional science is wrong and point out where the correct science is. I don’t mean an op-ed in the WSJ — I mean legitimate scientific publications.

          • jim karlock

            Please, provide us with scientific articles that demonstrate your point that CO2 will warm the earth dangerously.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            Jim, they’re all in the IPCC 4AR. Have you read it?

          • jim karlock

            Then give us the citation to the original papers with appropriate quotation.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Chuck Wiese

            David: Don’t engage me with your condescention. This post is straight out of a beauracrats handbook on how to dominate a conversation and assert knowledge superiority by “scolding” your opponent and attempting to make the reader think you know more than your opponent.

            The founding radiation physics were derived and established by peer reviewed work from physicist William Elsasser from Harvard. His work is published in most dynamic meteorology texts, including the ones entiltled ” Introduction To Theoretical Meteorology, Seymor Hess, chapters 8,9 and 10 ISBN0-03-005743-0 and “Dyanmical and Physical Meteorology” Haltiner and Martin, chapters 6,7,8,9 and 10, Library of Congress 57-8005. As an update to this work, a paper was recently published by German physicists Gerhard Gelich and Ralph Tseuschner entitled “Falsification of The Greenhouse Gas Theory”. There are NO REFUTATIONS OFFERED OR ACCEPTED BY ANY OF THESE WORKS.

            I don’t have the time to argue with someone like you any further unless you can answer my question. I have asked you several times now: Where are the measurements of increased radiative forcing from the rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the earth atmosphere? Prove your claims!

            Chuck F. Wiese

          • jim karlock

            *Hey* *David* where is that peer-reviewed proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming. (Pick a reasonable definition of dangerous.)

            We have been waiting months for this key piece of evidence as you continue to try to scare little children, illiterates and progressives with your version of Al Gore’s Global Garbage

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            Jim:

            Please define “reasonable.”

            Then, define “dangerous.”

            Thanks,
            David

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* Climate scientists have added up all these natural factors as best they can, and found that they do not explain the warming of the last few decades. Only when anthropogenic emissions are factored in can they explain them.
            *JK:* You just repeated the key logical fallacy underlying all of this mania:
            *Only when anthropogenic emissions are factored in can they explain them.*

            *WRONG!* *JUNK SCIENCE ALERT!*

            It is not *Only when..*
            it is really: *we can not figure out anything else, so we’ll just blame man and BTW please ignore the sun and any other things that we haven’t thought of.*

            That is one of several things in your fallacy that makes it so obviously, well….., just laughable. That any serious scientist would accept this is appalling and says volumes about their qualifications to be in any position of responsibility.

            BTW: we are still waiting for proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Todd

            “He says we are missing the boat on our energy discussions by overlooking the potential of conservation. We get way more reduced CO2 AND reduced cost by investing in ways to use less fossil fuel, as opposed to developing alternatives. Interesting.”

            People frequently tout this concept of which others and I like to call “negawatts”.

            I have written about this topic as well:

            Why Energy Efficiency doesnt always reduce GHGS
            https://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/2008_34.pdf

            The main idea is that efficiency lowers the relative price of energy which encourages more demand, known as the rebound effect.

            Now let’s say you dont believe in the rebound effect, many non economists don’t. You can certainly believe that the extra money “saved” by efficiency efforts doesn’t sit and burn a hole in your pocket. It is spent on products that are more than likely involve an energy intensive process to produce. When you reduce energy usage in one sector through efficiency, you simply accomodate more demand in another.

            This is not to say that energy efficiency shouldn’t be pursued. I think energy efficiency upgrades are a fantastic idea……of course, if they make legitimate cost effective sense.

  • THMichael

    ТС: ++

  • Bob Clark

    I think the government would be better served focusing first on reducing other man made gases more potent than CO2, for example, methane and carbon black. For all the money proposed for reducing CO2, we could probably work a deal with developing countries like china and india to retrofit their power plants with the latest air pollution control technologies and eliminate many of these more potent warming gases. Typical government. Go for the most intrusive and less productive solutions first.

    • David Appell

      Methane and black carbon are not “more potent” than CO2. Molecule-for-molecule, yes. But in terms of overall (anthropogenic) impact on the planet — no. CO2 has a higher overall radiative forcing than the others.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* CO2 has a higher overall radiative forcing than the others.
        *JK:* all the others *except* water vapor.

        Why do you guys always leave out the most important warming agent – water vapor. Is it because you cannot blame man for that one? And therefore cannot use water as an excuse to re-order society to your Utopian fantasy?

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          Jim, your very question indicates you haven’t studied the very first thing about climate science.

          Of course climate scientists know about the effects of water vapor, and include it in all their calculations and models. Unlike you, they’re not idiots.

          Have you read their papers?

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* Jim, your very question indicates you haven’t studied the very first thing about climate science.
            *JK:* Are you trying to downplay the FACT that water vapor causes many times the actual warming (if any) of CO2?

            *David Appell:* Unlike you, they’re not idiots.
            *JK:* Temper, temper, Dave.
            *You are the one who:*

            Believes that modern society needs to be destroyed to save the earth from CO2 *eventhough CO2 has never been proven to be a danger.*

            Accepts the hockeystick, *eventhough it was thoroughly debunked in peer reviewed journals and two different peer-reviewed reports from the NAS.*

            Believes man causes global warming simply *because we cannot figure out any alternative explanation.*

            Believes CO2 causes warming as *the earth cooled in the 60s and the 00s with increasing CO2.*

            Believes play station models eventhough *they failed to predict* the current cooling.

            Believes Hansen, eventhough his *predictions* to congress 20 years ago *turned out to be garbage.*

            Believes play station models eventhough they *failed to predict* the upper atmospheric temperature changes.

            Ignores a virtually *perfect fit between solar cycles and temperature* because the last detail has not been figured out, while accepting CO2’s guilt without proof.

            Ignores the *BILLIONS of grant money going into the scaremongering scientists* while others are afraid to speak out.

            It is you who is the idiot, Dave.

            *We are still waiting for proof that co2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”*
            Thanks
            JK

  • UQDavid

    Хай, классный у тебя портал! Продолжай развивать!

  • Jackson

    If global climate change (warming in this case) is the fault of man-made pollution, why did it also happen back during the medieval warm period circa 850? At that time there were no power plants or automobiles.

    • dean

      Jackson, the “Medieval warm period” is one of those myths that are supposed to counter global warming theory but don’t hold up under a minimum of scrutiny. See: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
      for a more complete explanation.

      Todd…there are no “thousands upon thousands of scientists, climatologists, modelers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists and the like that completely disagree with what you and David are saying.” This is horse pucky. There were some internet petitions that circulated and attracted a lot of unverified signatures from all sorts of people who claimed to be PhDs in this or that, mostly engineering and computer science. Climate scientists, and the world body of scientists from every related field are on record supporting global warming as real and as man influenced. The only real disputes are around the margins.

      You say you are not “discounting my views,” but then you go on to accuse me of preaching “that global warming will bring the world to an end” when I did no such thing. I didn’t “preach” and I didn’t say the world will end.

      You then say: “Do the world and yourself a favor, do not follow your beliefs blindly.” First…accepting the preponderance of evidence as presented by those who know climate best does not amount to a “belief.” Its simply objectively applied logic. Temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing, there is a laboratory demonstrated and mathematical support that the latter is largely responsible for the former. And there is both logic and models rooted in physics to indicate that if we continue to load the atmosphere we could get our kids and their kids, if not ourselves into an expensive and ecologically costly pickle. To dismiss the documented science as “beliefs” and “preaching” says more about your approach to this issue than it does about mine.

      Its way past time to accept reality and come up with the best ways to solve the problem rather than to continue to deny it exists. With due respect, ‘congestion pricing,” while a concept I happen to support, is not up to the magnitude of the task. I’m all for market based as opposed to command and control solutions, but they have to be substantive and comprehensive.

    • David Appell

      The MWP was a relatively small fluctuation, and it has certainly has not been established that it was a global phenonemon. The science is not yet established, and many scientists think it only occurred in Greenland and northern Europe, not globally.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    You’re nuts. The IPCC take on both the “Medieval warm period” and little ice age are riddled with flaws, anomalies and conveniently skewed presumptions. Even a simple taking out that single line ( an anomaly) that rises far above the others and our current warming is consistent with the Medieval Warming period that lasted a couple hundred years and peaked a couple times.
    What’s more is the IPCC embellishes and diminishes all sorts of their theorizing to fit the intended model.
    Which you fail to recognize or acknowledge. Deliberate or otherwise you choose instead to deliberately discount it all under the few worn out excuses no longer needing to be repeated.

    The prime example of the sloppy science you worship is the recent revelation regarding September temperatures being carried over to October and used to determine that October 08 was “warmest on record”.
    Had it not been for several of the skeptics you disregard out of hand those numbers and bogus results would today be touted by you and others as reliable. James Hansen and company, (despite the endless assurances and “peer review rhetoric”) was never going to check those reported temperatures. Given other fatal flaws it’s exceedingly rational and prudent to know those were NOT the only numbers or conclusions that have been based upon an equally irresponsible and sloppy process. Reckless and disingenuous is the MO of Hansen and company.

    Your hard core allegiance to this caliber of tainted consensus building is a demonstration in group fanaticism. Your unwavering adherence to the Al Gore-Bill Bradbury chorus leaves you disabled and ill-equipped to contribute anything of genuine value.

    In short,,,, Shut up fool.

  • David Appell

    > The prime example of the sloppy science
    > you worship is the recent revelation regarding September
    > temperatures being carried over to October and used to
    > determine that October 08 was “warmest on record”.

    Maybe you don’t know this, but this is how science has worked throughout history. Scientists sometimes make mistakes. Other scientists find these flaws and the data or theory is corrected. It will always be so, forever.

    There may very well be other errors in the temperature data. Their resolution has an equal probability of increasing mean global temperatures as it has reducing them — but skeptics surely spend far less time scrutinizing that data compared to the data which doesn’t fit their ideology.

    There may well be errors in the theories of skeptics, too (and, indeed, there often is, whenever experts bother to look). See, for example, my article in the August 2003 issue of Scientific American, or Santer et al’s recent critique of Douglass’s et al’s paper.

    Also, on average, skeptics will also be wrong at the same rate as scientists.

  • David Appell

    Chuck wrote:
    > The global temperature decline was a total
    > missed and erroneous projection by global
    > climate models.

    Chuck, climate models do not “predict climate.”

    They project climate. That is, given precise assumptions about CO2 increases, economic activity, etc., they calculate the expected temperature/precipitation changes.

    As no IPCC economic scenario has been exactly duplicated in climate models — in particular, the rate of CO2 increases has increased sharply (by a factor of about 3) this decade compared to last — no climate model can be used to assert what today’s climate should be.

    They all, though, indicate general warming over decades, with AGHGs, and that is exactly what has been found.

    • chuck wiese

      David: You are dead wrong. Projections of climatic temperatures are a total failure by all of the GCM’s. I have the data and it was plotted.

      I will post it for everyone to see soon.

      The use of the words project and forecast have the same meaning as applied to GCM’s.

      Again, you did not answer my question twice in earlier posts. You just said again that GCM’s projection of warming temps over the decades was exatcly what has been found. If this is true, and it was radiative forcing from Co2 that caused the past warming, where are the maesurements of this radiation?

      If you can’t measure it, it isn’t there!

      Nice try but just more poppycock.

      Chuck F. Wiese

      • David Appell

        Chuck,

        Sorry: the projections have been quite good. See, as I wrote earlier,

        IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703
        (bottom three graphs)
        https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp

        Hansen’s C scenario (I think) of about 1980 has also been pretty accurate.

        > The use of the words project and forecast have
        > the same meaning as applied to GCM’s.

        This is simply wrong.

        Projections make _assumptions_ about the values of future variables.

        Forecasts are made purporting that one knows the true and accurate value of these variables.

        As I said, the history of CO2 emissions in the last 15 yrs or so is not reflected in any climate model I know of — a ~1%/yr increase in the 1990s, and an ~3%/yr increase in the ’00s. So how can any model be expected to predict the future, when they all assume different economic scenarios?

        • jim karlock

          *David:* Hansen’s C scenario (I think) of about 1980 has also been pretty accurate.
          *JK:* What the hell are you talking about? The closest he came to reality was that his scenario for severe cuts in CO2 (which DID NOT OCCUR) was fairly close, but completely misses the cooling since 1998 (tied with 1934 as the warmest year ever in the USHCN which Hansen keeps).

          Hanson’s scaremongering of 1988 proved untrue as his later scaremongering will also prove untrue.

          Why do you even mention nut cases like Hansen who makes some of the wildest predictions short of the pros like Al Gore.

          BTW, did you notice that the oceans’ million years old trend of rising has recently stopped?
          BTW the polar bears are doing just fine.
          BTW, some Cascade glaciers are starting to grow.
          *We are still waiting for proof that co2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”*

          Thanks
          JK

        • chuck wiese

          David: This is more BS. Every one of these models is wrong! Every damn one of them! The “economic scenarios” do not matter! Every model involves dumping more Co2 into the atmosphere and every model causes temperature rise to track upward to varying degrees with CO2. The plots of temperature against perdormance by any model is a dismal failure with the last seven years being ever mounting proof.

          The IPCC is full of crap! I have the data and will share it soon with all of the community. Climate models are total failures in any scenario with present technology and defy basic radiation laws by manipulation of the other parameters that could control temperature.
          I again ask you: Where are the radiative forcing measurements in the real atmosphere from Co2 that confirm any climate model “projection”?
          If you can’t provide them, you cannot claim model performance of any degree or certainty!

          Chuck F. Wiese

  • David Appell

    Chuck wrote:
    > 4. water vapor is anything but constant. It varies
    > widely from place to place and day to day depending
    > on position and altitude. There is no way you can
    > accurately model it,

    Of course.

    But calculations and models can still be very useful even if they don’t handle all these little microscopic/local details.

    Mix a pot of water at 50 C with one at 70 C — equal volumes. Physics says the average temperature of the resultant fluid will be 60 C. But obviously not everywhere — there are statistical, localized fluctuations all over the place. (For that matter, each original individual volume of fluid has statistical, localized fluctuations as well.)

    Yet physical laws can accurately calculate the new average temperature.

    Likewise, models need not capture every small detail to be useful — not in climate, nor in economics, nor in traffic management, nor in political elections, etc. Yet some of them — verified, like by hind-casting, do a pretty good job. See, for example:

    IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703
    (bottom three graphs)
    https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp

    • chuck wiese

      David: I’m glad you wrote this because it is about indicitave of the degree of sophistication in your analogy. I quote:

      “Mix a pot of water with one at 50degC and one at 70degC, equal volumes.Physics says the average temperature of the resultant fluid will be 60 degC.”

      No, David, this is wrong. The final temperature of the water is also dependant on the specific heat capacity of the surrounding enclosure and then how much heat is lost per unit time to the surroundings by conduction and radiation, both from the water and surrounding enclosure with respect to the air.

      These sophomoric examples by you I consider to well to describe the sophistication of a climate model. Never mind the “finer details”. We can ignore them ( Even though they are significant and drastically change the answer not only at a specific time but at any future integrated time! )

      Chuck F. Wiese

  • Anonymous

    David,

    Maybe you don’t know this, but there is a big difference between routine mistakes and sloppy science and the deliberate misrepresentations than come out of it.
    One has science working through Scientist’s mistakes and the other has scientists recklessly perpetuating a fraud.

    You and dean can’t tell the difference.

    Of course there are many other errors in the temperature data and other modeling data and methods.
    Hansen is not using the due diligence sound science demands.
    If he was it would be him catching the flaws and correcting them.
    He’s not. He’s on a embellishing crusade instead.

    You falsely think the skeptics are the ones spending less time scrutinizing that data when it is your consensus makers who are selective, negligent and dishonest as they push forward their ideology.
    Your continuous offering up IPCC reports is as usefull as Hansen touting the October recrod temps or the IPCC official running around telling the media AGW is causing more hurricanes when their own reports say otherwise. This stunt led to the resignation of one of their chief hurricane experts.
    Is that how “science has worked throughout history”?

    Blatant, instiutional, concensus lying?

    • David Appell

      By what evidence are you claiming “deliberate misrepresentations?” That’s an extremely serious charge — a career-ending charge for any scientist. Where is your evidence?

      Put up your evidence for it, or shut up and withdraw the claim.

      -=-=-

      How do you know what errors Hansen is catching and not catching? Do you expect him to be absolutely perfect? Perhaps he has caught hundreds of errors you don’t even know about.

      And, how do you know what errors Hadley are making, or UAH, or RSS?

      You don’t. You are very easy to proclaim dishonesty (and, as you’re doing it anonymously, this is a quite cowardly claim) , yet you haven’t presented one iota of evidence for such a claim.

      Do you really think you can accuse people of malfeasance when you clearly hardly know anything about their procedures? And when you are anonymous? You are a coward.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* By what evidence are you claiming “deliberate misrepresentations?” That’s an extremely serious charge — a career-ending charge for any scientist. Where is your evidence?

        Put up your evidence for it, or shut up and withdraw the claim.
        *JK:* I see you are still up to it.

        Mann probably intentionally fabricated the hockey stick fraud:

        1. He used proxies well known to be flawed. When those are removed from his reconstruction, the hockey stick disappears.

        2. He misused the statistical process. Had he applied it correctly there was no hockey stick. (His U has a first rate stats dept which he DID NOT CONSULT.)

        This degree of carelessness combined with ignoring what was well known in his field add up to gross incompetence or fraud. I judge fraud, you may merely judge gross incompetence.

        Thanks
        JK

    • David Appell

      Anonymous/Coward:

      You still haven’t presented one shred of evidence that Hansen or any other IPCC scientist knowingly misrepresented any item of data whatsoever.

      You are verging on liable. Do you actually have any proof?

  • David Appell

    > He used proxies well known to be flawed.

    Which proxies were those, exactly?

    • jim karlock

      *David:* Which proxies were those, exactly?
      *JK:* I’m surprised you don’t know, I thought you were supposedly up to speed on the climate debate. Being a science writer and all that.

      Strip bark. Bristle cone pines.
      Later info is coming out that many others are alos poor proxies and many have a u shaped response to temperature where higher temperatures are made to look much lower. But you know all that DON’T YOU Dave?

      Thanks
      JK

    • jim karlock

      *JK:* Hey, David, don’t miss this gem:

      Sun’s Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations

      The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. *According to a study in Geographical Research, the droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect.*

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        JK, you fail to understand how science works.

        Sure, this individual study is interesting. It passed peer-review. It is right now being read by thousands of scientists around the world. A few experts will have significant thoughts on it, and will follow-up as necessary. Perhaps this study is right. Perhaps wrong. It needs to be verified. And then re-verified. It needs to be thought through and fully considered. That might take 2 or 5 or 20 years. This isn’t a baseball game, where every publication is a run over the plate for one side or another. This is science — the most complicated method of thinking mankind has ever created.

        The legacy of articles over the past 180 yrs, and esp the past 30+ yrs, pointing towards the concern about AGHGs and GW is certainly not going to be overdone by one publication. Let’s see it defended in colloquia and seminars and conferences and in subsequent scientific literature, like the work on AGW has.

        *That’s* how science works. Sure, it is not simple, or clean, or able to be boiled down to a bullet item for people like you. It requires a lot of thought and analysis. It requires skepticism everywhere. This is, in fact, how scientists live their lives. It’s what they do every day.

        • jim karlock

          *David:* That might take 2 or 5 or 20 years. This isn’t a baseball game, where every publication is a run over the plate for one side or another. This is science — the most complicated method of thinking mankind has ever created.
          *JK:* How come the IPCC instantly grabs any alarmist paper that comes along, including some in pre-press?

          Please quit with the double standard.
          Please cough up your proof that CO2 can cause warming or shut up.

          Thanks
          JK

  • Anonymous

    David,
    How many times must you be shown examples of blatant IPCC scientists knowingly misrepresented data.
    Youv’e seen this and others many times.
    Yet you keep yammering as if you have never seen it and it never exists.
    That makes you too a liar.
    So shut up or find some integrity.

    An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea

    Dear Colleagues,

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

    With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.

    Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

    I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

    My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.

    Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the Web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

    It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights,” as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC who represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC [Dr. Trenberth] has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.

    This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC.

    It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation–though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements–would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

    I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

    Sincerely,

    Chris Landsea

  • John in Oregon

    This is a general comments post although I want to start with a question Dean asked > *do you relly (sic) mean the FED caused the stock market to crash in 29, or do you mean they may have prolonged the depression by tightening money after the crash? I’m just asking for clarification, not picking an argument.*

    I know you are asking for information and it’s a good question. Yes I mean the FED caused the stock market crash of 1929 and the recession of 1929 and 1930. The FED also did some damage after the stock market crash.

    Between 1921 and 1928 by best accounting the FED inflated the money supply by 60%. Capital investment flowed like water. Then in 1928, the year before the crash the FED switched to tight money policy doubling the interest rates and choking off investment capital in the months leading up to the stock market crash. The coming crash, driven by the FED was quite foreseeable and both Bernard Baruch and Joseph Kennedy left the market before the crash. Ben Bernanke’s apology for the FED having caused the 29 crash was posted here on the Catalyst.

    Although the FED took further deflationary action by aggressively selling government securities for months after the stock market crashed it was the Federal Governments turn to step up and make things worse. Second at bat was the Herbert Hover administration with the Smoot- Hawley Tariff, “the most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war.” Then there were the FDR tax increase, the WPA, Government the employer of first resort, Keynesian spend up economics and the recession became a depression lasting 12 years until WWII ended it.

    The above is relevant to topics that have been touched on here, the privately funded Cascade Policy Institute (CPI) report on the Economic and Fiscal impact of Oregon greenhouse gas reduction policies. Do the CPI reports estimates go far enough? What is and is not validated by the CPI report?

    This report is an all else being equal report. That is, what is the impact of Oregon implementation of Western Climate Initiative with all else being unchanged. Beyond standard variables the report does not go into secondary and tertiary effects. The factual nature of the study is a strength of the report and also necessary. At the same the report does not tell us how polices might snowball and impact other parts of the economy.

    A larger question is why this privately funded report is even necessary? Under normal circumstances commissions generally provide at least a cursory evaluation of benefits, effectiveness of options, and economic costs of implementation. All absent from the WCI and Oregon GHG polices.

    That answer for these missing elements is found in the requirements of the Commissions Operator that prohibits cost-benefit analysis of the policy options. Indeed no analysis of effectiveness of the climate policy recommendations is offered either.

    The CPI report found economic growth approximately cut in half, employment would be 90,000 less than baseline projections, and State and local revenues would be reduced by about 13 percent. But, is that all of the story? Does it tell us what we need to know during the present economic conditions?

    I invite you to step back and take a long view.

    At the turn of the century Government and Court action propelled the growth of low income real-estate and personal sub-prime loans. By 2007 the credit markets were becoming unstable. A year later Fanny and Freddie crashed creating a choking of investment capitol. Then just after the Republican convention the ABX Market of housing derivatives crashed causing a freeze of credit availability.

    An eerie feeling of Deja Vu all over again. The similarities between 1920-29 and 1998-2008 are striking.

    The same general conditions apply just with different Government players and the same results. The question is will Government policy follow that old path creating a devastating greater depression.

    That path, restraint of trade, high taxes, Keynesian Government spending, and government intervention in markets and industry.

    Within this context what does WCI do and the CPI study tell us? Which elements that created the great depression are present?

    Restraint of trade? Yes in the form of restrictions on the creation, production and use of energy.

    High taxes? Yes in the form of direct and indirect taxes on energy.

    Keynesian Government spending/ Yes, massive redirection of capital spending at Government whim.

    Government intervention in markets and industry? Yes, an absolute strangle hold on the energy and transportation sectors.

    I began with the question raised by others here suggesting the CPI report validates one or another Global Warming claim. Taking the remaining validation claim.

    *O Proposition* The report did not take issue with the fact of man-caused global warming thereby validating AGW.

    The CPI study is directed to measurable economic impacts and not the validity of Global Warming.

    Quite frankly neither does the WCI or the various commissions. The commission operators simply adopt the pre ordained premise that catastrophic global warming is present, solely due to the existence of humans, dire, and requires immediate action at the exclusion of all other considerations. Therefor no consideration of the science, even new scientific evidence is entertained by the commission operators.

    Finally consider the support and validation of the IPCC.

    While the IPCC is busy remaking the planet in their own sanctified image, the public support for AGW alarm has plummeted across 11 industrialized countries. A fact not lost on the IPCC and one which precipitated the following event embargoed in the US media.

    Last month a reporter witnessed, “Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.”

    “As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]“.”

    The reporter continued “Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there’s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened … the facts are clear.”

    That Rajendra Pachauri will do anything to get and keep power quite simply make he and the IPCC a laughing stock.

  • Anonymous

    David and dean will be unable to recognize Pachcuri
    misrepresentation.
    David will pretend they don’t exist and
    he’ll repeat

    (*”You still haven’t presented one shred of evidence that Hansen or any other IPCC scientist knowingly misrepresented any item of data whatsoever.You are verging on liable. Do you actually have any proof?”*)

    With each and every past present and future occurance of misrepresentation David does and will trot out some bromide to aid in the hoax and obscure the hijacking of science.

    • dean

      And who “hijacked science?” The scientists?

  • Anonymous

    dean,
    Are you incappable of paying attention?

    Scientists like Hansen, Pachauri, Trenberth and others who are without integrity did the hijacking.

    It’s nearly impossible to make a basic point with the likes of you isn’t it?

    • David Appell

      Anonymous is afraid to sign his real name, so it’s difficult to take his accusations seriously.

      But he/she needs to put up or shut up. Please specify how Hansen and Trenberth lack “integrity.” With details — what malfeasance have they committed?

      • jim karlock

        And while you’re at it David, please *show us the proof that CO2 can cause meaningful warming.*

        You have zero credibility if you can’t prove the very foundation of your beliefs.

        Thanks
        JK

  • John in Oregon

    Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is an economist by training. While some would question economics as a science discipline, the relevant fact is that Pachauri a political bureaucrat. Serving as chair of the IPCC Pachauri has a vested interest in acquiring and maintaining political power.

    When Pachauri presented false data in Australia he deserved the derision he has earned from the Australian Press. As a trained economist Pachauri knows full well that falsified data is NEVER allowed.

    But then errors are the norm for promoters of the dire emergency of human caused global warming and the organizations they control.

    And then there is this little ditty in the news

    “As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against “climate change,” a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing.”

    “[T]he WMO, the … U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world’s information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions.”

    “The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report … for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight…”

    So to answer the question, the Science has been hijacked by the bureaucrats who have an agenda.

    • dean

      So the actual scientists….the ones who do the research, publish the findings, serve as peer reviewers….are they in on this conspiracy or are they innocent bystanders?

      • jim karlock

        *Dean:* are they in on this conspiracy or are they innocent bystanders?
        *JK:* The are quitting in protest of the distortions of their work.

        You saw one letter of resignation posted here earlier, but choose to ignore it.

        You ignore all facts that you don’t like – like the fact that you cannot come up with proof that CO2 can actually cause warming.

        thanks
        JK

    • John in Oregon

      Its bureaucrats being bureaucrats. Its what bureaucrats do.

      Scientists do research. Scientists review the reports.

      IPCC Bureaucrats like Rajendra Pachauri write the reports and the summary. IPCC Bureaucrats like Rajendra Pachauri choose which comments to use or ignore. IPCC Bureaucrats like Rajendra Pachauri make sure the research report is consistent with the summary. The summary is published prior to completion of the report.

      The IPCC “peer review process is upside down and backwards of the normal publication review process which is why so many of the “IPCC peer reviewers” have resigned in disgust.

  • Anonymous

    David,
    Try some integrity. I know for certain you are aware of the misrepresentations. Pay attention for once and try and comprehend, remember and consider the facts.

    Dr. Trenberth participated in causing the media to believe and report that global warming=more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” and for them to directly connect the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.

    Hansen has been caught misrepresenting and recently with the September temperatures carried over to October.
    He would till be using those bogus numbers to support his claims of a record October has skeptics not “reviewed” the work and caught him.
    And you would be today touting the Hansen pitch as the best science available. You’re a fraud David.
    Hansen is a hair brained crackpot, Trenberth is a proven liar, and Pachauri the same.

    Just imagine how they could “peer review” each other and pass on their work to commissions with chairs who have conflicts of interest. Such as the upthread piece demonstrates.

    Your inability to recognize, utilize and maintain integrity disqualifies you from any further legitimate contributions.

  • Anonymous

    Note that it wasn’t “peer review” that caught the Hansen errors behind the October temps but it was skeptics review.

    • dean

      Ah yes…but who is reviewing the work of the so-called “skeptics?”

      Jim K and John…all right…one scientist resigned from the IPCC. Maybe a handfull. Did any of them suggest there is some sort of vast conspiracy that the other thousands of climate scientists are secret members of? No? Why not. Wouldn’t SOMONE break omerta on this? Or do they all fear horse heads in their beds?

      The IPCC draws its conclusions from peer reviewed published work and only peer reviewed published work. Its job is to distill the science and present it to policy makers for their action or inaction. All scientific summary reports are written by someone, or teams of someones. Whether they are “bureaucrats” or contractors is not really relavant is it? All the scientists whose names are on those reports have a chance to review them and raise issues if there is any distortion or inappropriate conclusions. If a handfull resigned and a thousand or more did not, what does that say to you? And if EVERY MAJOR scientific society in the United States stands behind the IPCC summareis, what does THAT say? Hansen could be an utter fraud…a liar…whatever you like. He could not pull this off by himself or with a few comrades. No Davinci Code here.

      I frankly don’t know if the climate scientists are right or not. None of us do. But to suspect and even accuse them of some sort of vast conspiracy is sheer lunacy born of frustration.

      Argue the issue on the merits, but don’t argue it based on conspiracy theories.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    Why do I find you such an intellectual slob?

    Now the skeptics review that catches the consensus makers needs to be peer reveiwed? By who,,, the consensus makers?
    Even when they admit the skeptics were right?

    You are a game player.

    Yeah some IPCC people have resigned.
    Chris Landsea did so because his IPCC peer was misrepresenting data and the IPCC would do nothing about it when it was brought to their attention.
    That’s just one of many problems.
    Problems that don;t dry up and blow away simply because you trot out strawman rhetoric about a vast conspiracy.

    Sure the IPCC draws its conclusions from peer reviewed published work.
    But they don’t peer review or scrutinize everything. That’s why it took skeptics to discover the false October temperatures and
    skeptics to debunk the Hockey Stick Theory.

    Your elementry lesson on reports and bureaucrats is useless.

    There have been distortions and inappropriate conclusions with nothing done about it by your consensus, peer reviewing heirarchy.

    You can’t bail out of responsibility for your part in this fraud. Your entire army of Bullshitters shares the blame.

    Here you are with another chapter of it with your accusation that all the skeptisism and contrary science ammounts to charges of “some sort of vast conspiracy” and therefore “sheer lunacy”.

    There’s many components to this hoax, fraud and con job AGW.
    It doesn’t take a vast, and I guess you’re inferring a coordinated,
    conspriracy.

    The skeptisism is an abundant and growing collection of arguments on the merits.
    I’ve not read or heard anyone charge a vast coordinated conspiracy the way you are dodging and straw manning.

    From and up blog thread——–

    Interesting thought about the Oregon climate change commission…

    I looked on the oregon govt website for the members:
    https://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/GWC/GWC-Members.shtml

    The chair is the head of an environmental organization that sells offsets.

    Take a closer look :https://www.b-e-f.org/

    I am not sure how a voluntary carbon offset company will do if cap and trade is imposed but I would assume that there is a potential to further that organizations goals and increase thier “donations”(sales of carbon offsets)
    #3.1 Richard on 2008-12-08 12:01 (Reply)
    Richard, you are right — this is very inappropriate. It detracts from the credence of the Commission. It will be difficult to believe any of their conclusions are objective when their Chairman has a financial interest in their results.
    #3.1.1 David Appell on 2008-12-08 17:07 (Reply)

  • John in Oregon

    > *all right…one scientist resigned from the IPCC.*

    One ??
    ONE ??????
    *ONE* ??????????????????????????????????????

    > *any of them suggest there is some sort of vast conspiracy*

    I find your speculation here fascinating. I did a quick check over several posts and you seem to be the only person to have identified a conspiracy.

    Now, don’t get me wrong I am quite willing to admit that conspiracies do exist. The guilty verdicts in the Holly Land Foundation case are apt demonstration. But what you suggest is right up there with the 9/11 toofers who maintain the twin towers were brought down by controlled implosion.

    To be a real conspiracy requires at least two but seldom more than a handful of people who conspire to achieve a common goal. CAIR as an unindicted coconspirator exemplifies this. A few CAIR people were linked with the Holly Land Foundation. Those who solicited charitable contributions knew none of this.

    Its interesting that in association with Pachauri you bring up Hansen. Pachauri was caught presenting false data. Hansen has repeatedly been caught presenting errored data. Does that mean they conspired? I suppose that is possible however there is a better explanation.

    Both men have agendas and its more likely those agendas have influenced actions. Both are bureaucrats in positions to control the levers of power to manipulate the organizations below them. Those below them are no more conspirators than these who honestly solicited charitable contributions.

    The problem of bias is well recognized in the scientific method. The double blind study in which those who assign medications and those who evaluate results are each blind to the actions of the other.

    This is the source of the criticism that the primary propionates of an alarmist agenda are also the controllers of the data and evaluation process.

    Dean you commented . *Whether they are “bureaucrats” or contractors is not really relavant (sic) is it?*

    Of course they are extremely relevant. Both are in positions of power and subject to the bias of agendas. That however is a subject of some depth best left to a later post.

    • dean

      John…well then how many scientists resigned from the IPCC to protest the reports? Our anonymous friend cites one…Landsea. Do you have others?

      We 3 seem to agree there is no vast conspiracy of climate scientists to trick us into believing global warming is a fact and is caused in large part by human actions. I’m happy to leave it at that.

      • jim karlock

        Can’t you understand, Dean, it is not how many, it is why.

        Just like global warming – it is not how many (consensus) it is where is the evidence. (there is none.)

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    “I’m happy to leave it at that.”

    Of course you are dean. But all you’re leaving is your trumpt up conspiracy strawman.

    Who knows how many associates of the IPCC have moved away from that organization. It’s not like there’s a quitting talley being maintained by the IPCC. If they did have alist theye would never reveal it.

    And many don’t want their names dragged through the consensus regime muck for having left the plantation.

    The important points here are that IPCC people have been misrepresenting data and using bad data they neglected to validate.
    Many skpetics have argued on their merits by many skeptics.

    Few if any have argued based on conspiracy theories as you suggest.

    The skeptics review of the October tempts was reviewed by Hansen who validated the skeptic’s work.

    Your smarmy questioning is intellectual dodge ball.

    Go back and read the last few posts adressing them and try and pick out the most germane points to respond to instead of your games.

    • dean

      “Germane points? Like the one where you called me an “intellectual slob?” OK…how about “I’m rubber and you’re glue” as a response. Or how about my “army of bullshitters?” Is that germane? That deserves a response?

      Jim K. So what do the thousands of actual climate scientists who support global warming theory base their conclusions on? Zero evidence? That is what you believe? Or is it evidence you simply don’t accept, so you cast your doubts on others?

      • jim karlock

        *Dean:* Jim K. So what do the thousands of actual climate scientists who support global warming theory base their conclusions on?
        *JK:* What thousands?
        There are less than 100, less than ten if you count only ones without a conflict of interest:

        “it is claimed that ‘more than 2000 scientists’ have participated in or approved the IPCC’s 4AR recommendations; in fact, just 51 persons participated in the final approval of the SPM for the 4AR science volume; and McLean (2008) reports that out of the 62 expert reviewers of the critical Chapter 9, ‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change’, 55 had a conflicting or vested interest, *leaving only 7 reviewers who can be viewed, prima facie, as impartial.* Seven, of course, is a very different number from ‘more than 2000’.” (Bold added – From ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & POLICY, VOL. 38 NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 2008, page 188 http//www.eap-journal.com/download.php?file=671

        *Dean:* Zero evidence? That is what you believe? Or is it evidence you simply don’t accept, so you cast your doubts on others?
        *JK:* have you learned nothing from al the high quality stuff that I have posted over the months? There is NO EVIDENCE, just a lot of Al Gore, Hansen et al blowing hot air (and outright lies) to scare little children and gullible adults. They have presented NO evidence that man is causing warming. And *man’s guilt is the only issue – if man is not the cause of the alleged warming, all of the other stuff does not matter.*

        *The fact is that there is no proof of man causing “global warming”* (renamed “climate change” as the Earth started to cool)

        Lets review:

        *The hockey stick that AL Gore uses if wrong and probably a fraud.* For instance: (MBH98 is the paper that introduced the hockey stick. MM03, MM05a and MM05b are the papers from the “amateurs” that detected the fraud.)

        “In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete.
        The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum
        published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors
        and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggests
        that the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been.”

        “In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. …”

        “The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis,…”

        “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.”

        “Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years as it shows an increasing trend in about 1850 that has been attributed to atmospheric CO2 fertilization.”“

        The above several quotes are from: National Academes of Sciences Report titled: AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, pages 48-49

        *Notes on above:*
        Al Gore’s alarming temperature curve is shown to be wrong.

        The data in that paper does not support 1998 as the warmest year in a millennium is not supported by this paper (which is the foundation of that claim)

        The paleoclimatology community is a small group of friends using the same data sets to publish many papers, giving the false appearance of widespread agreement to the gullible.

        *additional*
        You may recall Al Gore’s graph of temperature and CO2. He alluded to a relationship. He was right and he lied. The relationship is one of temperature change firsts, CO2 change second.

        There is no proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

        There is no proof that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is man caused.

        *In view of the above, how can any ration person get sucked in by the hucksters like Gore?*

        You may want to read ALL of ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & POLICY, VOL. 38 NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 2008, page 188. It is a good summation of the current state of the non-evidence.

        Can you at least quit spreading such crap as thousands of scientists and quit considering Al Gore as a primary source?

        Thanks
        JK

      • jim karlock

        *Dean:* Jim K. So what do the thousands of actual climate scientists who support global warming theory base their conclusions on? Zero evidence? That is what you believe? Or is it evidence you simply don’t accept, so you cast your doubts on others?
        *JK:* Evidence, what evidence?
        You have been unable to show any evidence that man is the cause of harm.

        Melting ice caps are irrelevant if man did not cause it.
        Droughts are irrelevant if man did not cause it.
        Floods are irrelevant if man did not cause it.
        Drowning furry critters are irrelevant if man did not cause it.
        Plagues are irrelevant if man did not cause it.
        Melting glaciers are irrelevant if man did not cause it.
        Rising seas are irrelevant if man did not cause it.

        So where is your evidence that man is the cause. IE: man’s CO2 causes dangerous warming.

        *Put up or shut up Dean.*

        Thanks
        JK

  • jim karlock

    *JK:* Hey, Dean here is you chance to learn something real:

    *7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS*

    *Conclusion 1.* The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.

    *Recommendation 1.* Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

    *Conclusion 2.* Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.

    *Recommendation 2.* We believe that federally funded research agencies should develop a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us writing this report have been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been that they do not in general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what must be disclosed. Federally funded work including code should be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value. Some consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive use of their data for one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under federal support should be made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do routinely.)

    *Conclusion 3.* As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.

    *Recommendation 3.* With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.

    *Conclusion 4.* While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

    *Recommendation 4.* Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.

    From: National Academes of Sciences Report titled: AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, Pages 51-52

  • Anonymous

    yes dean
    You have proven yourself to be an “intellectual slob”, among the “army of bullshitters”.
    Response?
    Why would I need another response from the likes of you?

    That’s laughable.

    Go away for a while and study yourself into reality.

    “dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN”

    Spend some time and learn something. There is abundant testimony from not only many expert skeptics but your own favorite IPCC hacks a s well. Try and digest and comprehend the magnitude of this AGW hoax. It’s all right here in front of your face.

    https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

  • jim karlock
  • John in Oregon

    Dean you said > *[H]ow many scientists resigned from the IPCC to protest the reports?*

    Critics of the IPCC upside down, inside out “review process” are much larger than one. Don’t ask me to do your research for you, it’s not my job.

    > *We 3 seem to agree there is no vast conspiracy of climate scientists.*

    There is no vast conspiracy but you and I do not agree. Your newspeak presentation of a Hobson’s choice between a vast conspiracy on one hand and global warming caused by humans, an immediate threat, and must be controlled at any cost.

    I gave you the examples of Pachauri and Hansen, who have agendas are both bureaucrats in positions to control the levers of power to manipulate the organizations below them. Neither may be conspirators and both biased, manipulative and deceptive.

    To restate with another example. The US legacy media promotes Global Warming hysteria. Strident media voices proclaim record polar ice melt, never mention even larger record ice re-growth. The latest phrases, the science is settled, science agrees, the deniers few. Coverage of global warming that is hysterical and getting worse.

    Of course we all know bias flows from Journalists pores. Still the headlines must be true, it can’t be a vast conspiracy.

    Enter the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). A veritable tool box for any reporter assigned to the global warming beat. If you’re an editor at the Wagontire Post, all you have to do is send your cub reporters to this resource and they’ll have everything they need to write an article that fits the template and action line perfectly.

    Created, staffed, and funded by advocacy environmentalist groups the SEJ provides the latest “PC” line free of charge, no fuss, no muss.

    Is the SEJ a conspiracy? No. Is the SEJ illegal? No obvious reason to think so. The SEJ is however clearly biased, deceptive, and manipulates the public discourse. If we had an aggressive press the SEJ might well be a subject of public scrutiny.

  • John in Oregon

    By the way Dean, did you notice?

    The New York Times has just mortgaged its office building in order pay operating expenses.

    The Gray Lady’s bias cuts close to the quick.

    • dean

      John..I don’t think the decline in daily print papers has anything to do with their bias in one direction or the other. The Chicago Tribune, long a conservative Republican newspaper, filed for bankruptcy. Meanwhile the Huffington Post is going gangbusters, as is Drudge.

      I wasn’t the one who made the claim that some number of scientists have resigned in protest from the IPCC, so no…its not my job to prove a negative. The science behind AGW has been built brick by brick over decades by far more researchers than Hansen and Pachauri. There are still missing bricks, and some in places the mortar is still not set. But there has been nothing offered by the skeptics that amounts to doubting there is an edifice in place. Reporters are supposed to report truth…not he-said she-said. To the extent “the media” is now reporting that AGW is real and that the case is for all intents and purposes closed…they are simply reporting reality….not bias. Its not bias to report that the sky is blue if it is indeed blue.

      And by the way, when facts come out that contradict this or that aspect of AGW, those do get reported in the same biased media. Its the silly rumors they have been avoiding.

      • jim karlock

        *David: * But there has been nothing offered by the skeptics that amounts to doubting there is an edifice in place
        *JK:* And you have no proof of you beliefs. Show us the evidence for you statements, otherwise you are just blowing hot air:

        1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”

        2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”

        Above are two statements that yo made. Please supply peer-reviewed proof.

        Thanks
        JK

  • John in Oregon

    You chose to minimize the poor practices of the IPCC by diminishment to one.

    Which reminds me it took only one to point, one in a little boys voice to say *look the emperor has no clothes.*

    > *The Chicago Tribune filed for bankruptcy.*

    The Chicago Tribune did not file for bankruptcy. The Tribune Company, owner of The Chicago Tribune, among others, filed for bankruptcy. The major reason is the Los Angeles Times which has been hemorrhaging readership and circulation. The same Los Angeles Times who’s editors insisted the paper must do more of the same. The same Los Angeles Times that Sam Zell admitted was a major cause of the failure.

    Just a wild thought here. You know off the wall. Do you think just maybe Chicago corruption might have a tiny bit to do with it?

    Meanwhile IBD and the Wall Street Journal thrive.

    I read something that reminded me of the LA Times. *SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST*

    Rupert Murdoch said it best;

    “A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters *simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions.* Let’s be clear about what this means. *This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves.”*

    “It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened.”

    “The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.”

    • dean

      John…Chicago corruption has been endemic for many decades. I grew up there and know it well. I even paid off inspectors myself to get them to leave our family business alone. So if corruption were the cause of the Chicago Trib demise, they would have demised a long time ago.

      The Wall Street Journal is not “thriving.” It was marginally profitable when Murdoch bought it. The return to shareholders over the previous 15 uears was just over 100%, while the NY Times was at 228& and the Washington Post over 300% during the same period. It has done better at retaining subscribers than other papers, true, but it has a special market niche. It also never relied on the type of funding, like classified ads, that other papers have lost to the internet.

      That you would quote Rupert Murdoch on the issue of editors “trusting their readers” is pretty funny. I mean…this is the publisher of The Sun, most famous for being the first British daily that published a photo of a topless woman on the front page. I guess that IS trusting your readers come to think of it.

      I’m not minimizing nor maximizing what you call the “poor practices” of the IPCC. Large efforts like that are hard to manage, and organizing scinetists, people of large intellect and ego toward a common product (synthesis) is a monumental task. Sure, they are going to make some mistakes. But the science is what it is. The evidence is clear and compelling, and the risk of waiting for perfect knowledge is simply too high.

      • no one

        “I mean…this is the publisher of The Sun, most famous for being the first British daily that published a photo of a topless woman on the front page.”

        Already I m liking this guy.

  • John in Oregon

    THIRD VERSE, SAME AS THE FIRST

    The Chicago Tribune newspaper is not demised. The Chicago Tribune newspaper is not insolvent. The Chicago Tribune newspaper is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tribune Company.

    The Tribune Company has filed Chapter 11 for two reasons.

    1) The Los Angeles Times newspaper which has hemorrhaged circulation is burning through so much cash that the Tribune Company is unable to meet operating obligations.

    2) Illinois Gov. Blagojevich used his position to block the sale of non-publishing assets owned by the Tribune Company. Blagojevich did so in order to blackmail the Tribune Company to use its ownership of The Chicago Tribune newspaper as a lever to cause the firing of specific editors at The Chicago Tribune newspaper.

    And then there is, as you say the Wall Street Journal “not thriving”, while picking off advertising accounts one by one from the New York Times. Interesting definition of not thriving.

    But there is more, we are told the NY Times is thriving because they paid high dividends. Dividends for which the cash was obtained by selling assets. This all during the expansion of the New York Times to the new market of national distribution and that wasn’t able to offset plunging circulation. An interesting definition of thriving.

    • dean

      I never said the NY Times was “thriving.” That was your word to describe the Wall Street Journal. I was simply pointing out the fact that for some time the NY Times and W Post have produced higher returns on investment than the Journal. I don’t think any of them are “thriving.” And I don’t think whether they are thriving or not has anything to do with their politics, one way or the other. It has to do with internet competition.

      Other analysts say the Tribune company went down, taking the Tribune paper with it, because Zell bought the package on shaky credit and could not pay the debt from declining revenues.

  • John in Oregon

    Zell made the bet that he would be able to improve the marketability of the LA times faster than the times hemorrhaged cash.

    While Zell made progress with the marketability of the times product, resistance of the editorial staff sabotaged that effort. Not good for a levered positon.

    The second nail came when political manipulation roadblocked Zell’s plan to recover operating cash from the sale real estate property.

    Credit where credit is due. While the Washington Post circulation may benefit from the inside the beltway liberal audience, its real success is due to conservative business management practices which have kept the paper in a sound financial position.

  • Pingback: van cleef arpels ring()

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)