Kulongoski’s Global Warming “Solution” Would Cut Economic Growth in Half

Policymakers in Oregon have concluded that global warming is a crisis, that the use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of warming, and that state policies must be enacted to stabilize the global climate. Because of this, Oregon has adopted one of the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals in the world. Wide-ranging policy initiatives are being planned that will have large negative impacts on Oregon’s economy and standard of living.

In October 2008, Governor Kulongoski announced his Climate Change Agenda, introducing a comprehensive legislative package that attempts to aggressively mitigate the impacts of global warming. The main feature of the agenda is the adoption of a regional cap-and-trade program through the Western Climate Initiative. The program “caps” total emissions at some arbitrary level and then issues permits, each of which allows a certain amount of emissions. In order to reach reduction goals, the cap declines over time.

A recent independent economic study, Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies: The Economic and Fiscal Impact Challenges, assesses the quantifiable and measurable costs in the debate over whether to implement a cap-and-trade program or any other wide-ranging greenhouse gas reduction strategy. It finds the costs of enacting such policies to be tremendous. If a cap-and-trade program were to regulate and significantly reduce greenhouse gases, the study predicts that by 2020 Oregon’s economic growth would be cut approximately in half, there would be 90,000 fewer jobs, and state and local revenues would be $4.4 billion dollars lower.

A cap-and-trade program is essentially a complex tax on energy that will have a direct and negative effect on businesses and individuals while offering little or no environmental benefit. All alternative and complementary strategies, such as congestion pricing and a carbon tax, able to provide greater economic and environmental benefits should be considered before charging ahead, with little regard to the cost, on a cap-and-trade program here in Oregon.


Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center.

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 26 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    Who cares about growth. We must act now to save the planet. Ted is the man.

    • jim karlock

      Yeah, who cares how many Oregonians are thrust into poverty.

      Who cares how many low income people won’t be able to pay their energy bills.

      Who cares how many low income people will have to choose between heat and clothes for the kids.

      Who cares how many low income people will die because they can’t afford both meds and heat.

      Once again Oregon’s progressives show that they really don’t care. They care more about a B.S. postulate from a scientifically illiterate politician who has been banking millions spreading fear amongst children, politicians and gullible progressives.

      BTW, lets see some conflict of interest statements from teh members of the Oregon Climate Change Commission.

      thanks
      JK

  • Matt Evans

    Coupled with federal efforts – both through the proposed Lieberman-Warner legislation and the EPA’s proposed regulation of CO2 as a “pollutant” – Oregonians are faced with losing more than 100,000 jobs and higher costs for virtually everything they buy and including particularly heating their homes, driving their cars and feeding their families. The more important energy is in delivering a good or service, the more its price is likely to rise.

    To help stop the panic, visit http://www.afpor.org.

  • jim karlock

    *Todd:* All alternative and complementary strategies, such as congestion pricing and a carbon tax, able to provide greater economic and environmental benefits should be considered
    *JK:* None of those are acceptable because:

    They do not provide an opportunity for the Wall Street hucksters to get rich off the backs of the poor.

    The do not provide an opportunity for the company that employs the head of our Climate Change Commission to force people to buy their “green tags”.

    Good old Nick Stern (Stern Report) wouldn’t be able to make money rating carbon credits.

    Billionaire Maurice Strong’s Chicago Climate Exchange wouldn’t have our carbon credits to trade.

    Al Gore and his Wall Street buddies would never approve because there is no opportunity to fleece the poor.

    As usual, follow the money.

    PS: *Don’t forget that Al Gore said it is OK to lie to us:*
    I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are… Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, https://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/

    Thanks
    JK

    • Richard

      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)

      • David Appell

        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.

        • Richard

          i was amazed when I looked into it further. I am actually quite disappointed that Kulongoski would pick someone like this to head such a committee.

        • pete

          David –

          “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.”

          David, and I know you are big on this, how many scientists on this committee?? Not only is a potential conflict of interest inappropriate, but haven’t you been critical on other blogger web site posts when don’t seem to cite credible scientific sources?

          And why the concern with conflict of interest, this is probably just another example of the Chicago “school of government”, where one simply “sells” out to the highest bidder. Something that Blagojevich and Gore have perfected and Governor K is trying to emulate — perhaps a sterling example being Chinese electric cars!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    You know, an AGW believer might not be able to predict the weather, but one thing I can predict once the whole thing blows over:

    “But, we only did it with the best of intentions”

    Laughable in a way. First it was global cooling, then it was global warming, now it is both: climate change. At some point the best of intentions line just doesn’t work any more. Its simply about control, greater government power and more reach into everyone’s lives. That’s not a good intention, its a scam, perpetrated by a bunch of people who want to shut down any scientific discussion, whose founding leader was a divinity school drop out and who follow computer models to an extent it duplicates a Twilight Zone episode and then get all cranky when you say they tend to look quite a bit like any militant religious orthodoxy one would care to name.

    The only thing funnier than the whole scam is the predictability. When the clergy is found to be in error or to have lied, ( ocean temps and NASA getting caught making up numbers for October respectively ) is there any questioning by the adherents? Is their faith shaken at all? Of course not, excuses are made. Obvious falsehoods are papered over and hopefully not widely published.

    The only thing surprising at all is the offense that seems to be taken by adherents when the similarity to religious fervor is pointed to to them. I like doing so when I can as they purport to abhor theocracies (except for Tibet). I am trying to help them, to save them from embarrassment once AGW goes the way of bell bottoms or global cooling. In short – I do it with only the best of intentions.

    • dean

      Adherents…religious fervor….clergy…religious orthodoxy…AGW believers….geez Rupert, is there a theme here? Do you really believe that EVERY major science organization in the US that deals with the physics of climate and all of their members have turned themselves into a bunch of religious zealots? I mean seriously? Thousands of scientists have discarded all of their training, all of their research results, risked their tenureships and so forth in pusuit of a set of beliefs that does not fit measurable reality?

      And your evidience for this conspiracy of madness is what exactly?

      I think you might want to take a look at yourself. It might be you who is clinging to a belief because you fear government so much.

      • Anonymous

        “And your evidience for this conspiracy of madness is what exactly?”

        QED, daen.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        My evidence is mentioned partially in the post. I have also mentioned them repeatedly to you. You just chose to ignore them, again, consistent with a religious fervor, not a scientific attitude. Since you need things repeated to you to keep you from doing a Dean Weasel, I will repeat them:

        1) Consistently erroneous predictions. The ocean temps being cooler not warmer. Milder hurricane seasons not more intense. Varying temperatures, not steady warming, thus the change from Global Warming to Climate change as a CYA move.

        2) Consistent lying about numbers. the October numbers put out by NASA. 1998 being the warmest year on record, a lie.

        3) The leader of the movement himself, Al Gore, saying both that it is ok to lie and that AGW is a moral crusade, not a political one.

        4) The lying of AGW adherents to shut down debate, as you do, there is no scientific consensus and there are literally hundreds of scientists who are quite reputable who constantly speak out against this issue.

        You chose instead to not admit to these realities. You even do it in your post. Not every scientist agrees on this by any means. Yet you perpetuate this falsehood.

        So, since you act in every regard like a religious zealot, and sense your leader has said it is a moral issue, there is no reason in the world not to treat it as a religious issue.

        By the way, I did give you an out if you don’t like the religious comparison. You could simply claim to be Twilight Zone aficionados, since the scenario you insist on, relying on computer models to run things, is based exactly on “The Old Man in the Cave” episode. I think James Coburn was in it and he was hot as hell in his day. Maybe you can take some solace in that.

        Expected Dean Come Back Strategies based upon Rupert’s Computer Modeling of past arguments:

        Be sarcastic, attempt to obscure the issue with the publics ignorance of the IPCC report having some sort of credibility of being a statement by all the scientists on the planet.

        Obfuscate, try and switch the debate to whether or not climate change is happening rather than the central issue, whether or not it is of anthropogenic origin.

        Insult, claim that if one is not a scientist, one has no right to debate the issue. Warning, this strategy is becoming weaker and weaker as it tends to insult the populace and is easily defeated by the fact that Al Gore is a divinity school drop out, not a scientist.

        Try to change subject from AGW to one of energy independence.

        Do a Dean Weasel, claim I said something I did not. Examples, claim I am in favor of environmental disaster. Claim all conservatives are in favour of no regulations on anything at any time.

        Lie, claim without citation that the computer models ( The Twilight Zone episode strategy ) are accurate and backwards predict infallibly when tweaked right, ignore that when this is done they fail to predict forward.

        • dean

          1) You have the facts wrong. Oceans are warmer, not cooler. Hurricane seasons have not been “milder,” though this is an ambiguous statement. Milder than what? One researcher’s prediction? BFD. Temperatures ALWAYS vary, but the trend line is clearly up….not year to year but decade by decade.

          2) NASA October numbers were not a “lie.” They were an error corrected 24 hours after posting. Yes…credit for catching the error goes to climate skeptics. But the point is NASA made the correction. No one claims perfection except the Pope.

          3) Al Gore is not a “leader of a movement.” There is no “movement.” There is a body of scientific research published in peer review journals that establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the earth is warming due to a buildup of man caused greenhouse gas emissions. Al Gore has used his fame to bring this to the public’s attention, and he has been doing do since the early 1990s. He never said anything about “lying.” He said it was justifiable to emphasize the higher end of the range of estimates to help shake people and policy makers into action.

          4) There are no “AGW adherents.” There is nothing to “adhere” to except facts. There is a clear scientific consensus around the basics: that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. There are a lot of legitimate questions and debate about how much the earth will warm, how fast, what the feedback loops are, how much it will cost to convert to alternative energy, what the best way to do this is, and so forth.

          I don’t “admit” your realities because they are not reality Rupert. Why would I admit the existence of that which exists only in your and other doubters heads? You might also take issue with evolution or plate techtonics. Does that make your version reality?

          Of course EVERY scientist does not agree. The vast majority of actual CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree on the core questions. A few may not. And maybe those few in the end will be proven right. I hope they are.

          Computer modeling is part of modern science, not just in climate, but in physics, ecology and so forth. Scientists have ALWAYS built conceptual and mathematical models of how the world works in order to test theories. When the issue is the entire planet, nothing other than a computer model will work. Computers are simply a more powerful tool for them to use. What…you prefer an abacus? (That was sarcastic by the way).

          The IPCC reports are more than “some sort” of credibility. They represented the state of the knowledge at the time they were written. They never were represented as reflecting “all the scientists on the planet.” But they do fairly and accurately represent the research findings of the vast majority of scientists who study climate and related subjects.

          Climate change IS happening according to the data. And it IS being driven by human actions, including burning of fossil fuels, raising of livestock, and deforestation among other things according to the data.There is a small chance that the data or interpretation of the data is way off the mark. The IPCC places their collective certainty at around 95%. I hope they are wrong. But I’m assuming they are right.

          You can debate the issue all you want. But when you cite people like Lord Monckton of Benchley as your source to counter the work of thousands of scientists…well then be prepared to accept some well deserved ridicule.

          Rupert…it’s you who are doing all that you accuse me of. Lying, ridiculing, being sarcastic, obfuscating, and changing the subject. Consult your mirror pal.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >1) You have the facts wrong. Oceans are warmer, not cooler.

            Wrong. There was a recent study using buoys last summer. It was widely publicized. Ocean temps were cooler, not warmer as was predicted by the AGW’ers. You simply are not up to speed on this issue.

            >2) NASA October numbers were not a “lie.” They were an error corrected 24 hours after posting.

            Wrong. The result was anomalous in that it showed October was the warmest on record. When you have an anomalous result in a scientific experiment, you go back and check if there was something in the experiment that could have produced the anomaly. That’s the scientific method. If you expect AGW to be accepted as science rather than faith, you should expect, even demand, a scientific approach. Obviously you do not, and thus again you confirm AGW as faith, not science.

            Anyway, NASA obviously did not do this checking and instead published the numbers. This would be a simple error under normal circumstances, however they have been caught in this sort of thing before, with the 1998 temps. As such it amounts to malfeasance. NASA did not correct the numbers until they were caught by a blogger re-using Russian numbers from September. This has been repeated behaviour from NASA, thus it is reasonable to conclude they are not using scientific method but rather are simple grasping for evidence to confirm pre conceived conclusions. Again, more of a faith based approach than a scientific one.

            >3) Al Gore is not a “leader of a movement.

            He won a Nobel prize for being a leader on the issue.

            Obama just met with him yesterday to see what could be done with him on the issue.

            By those measures he is the leader of the movement, sorry.

            > 4) There are no “AGW adherents.” There is nothing to “adhere” to except facts. There is a clear scientific consensus around the basics: that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

            Wrong. There is no scientific consensus that the earth is warming due to man made green house gas emissions. As I said, there are legions of scientists that disagree with this view. Obviously you are not up to speed on this issue as their efforts have been widely publicized.

            AGW believers cannot prove CO2 causes global warming. Adherence to this when there has been no proof is therefore faith based. Again, this is more of a religious attitude than a scientific one.

            AGW believers cannot prove the man made portion of whatever gas they want to claim is responsible is the main contributor to global warming. That requires proof, not consensus.

            AGW believers cannot prove that efforts by man would reverse warming.

            AGW believers cannot even prove that reversing warming is even necessary as they have not been able to demonstrate what the effects of it would be. Al Gore claimed it would result in some nonsense like a 20 foot rise in sea levels, most dispute that.

            AGW believers maintain a fiction of consensus. There is not even agreement on the amount of sea level rise were global warming true. Sorry, when there is no consensus on the amount of sea level rise, a simpler proposition than modeling the weather system of an entire planet, then it is hard to accept consensus on the basic issue.

            AGW believers cannot even establish their methodology. Recently its been shown that temperature measuring stations are hardly pillars of consistency or accuracy. Over the years some have had asphalt parking lots developed around them. Some have had cities grow up around them and some have HVAC evaporator coils pointed at them. In short, the original data set upon which most of this is based is so corrupted it is unbelievable. Yet, AGW believers maintain all of this is done with the utmost of accuracy. Faith, not science.

            >When the issue is the entire planet, nothing other than a computer model will work. Computers are simply a more powerful tool for them to use. What…you prefer an abacus?

            Obviously you do not know very much about computer modeling as you are operating under a real falsehood. Whether you are modeling a car tire or an entire planet, the fact that you are using a computer has nothing to do with the accuracy of your result. That is determined by your methodology, understanding of the system involved and the basic parameters and construction of your model. Computers simply speed up the time it takes to compute the result, they do not affect the basic accuracy of the result itself. This is determined by the initial model and data set.

            I would not expect a person with a non scientific background to understand this initially. Most can be overwhelmed by the “gee whiz-ness” of computers. At any rate, now you know.

            >You can debate the issue all you want. But when you cite people like Lord Monckton of Benchley

            And when you cite citations that no one gave as a citation, expect to be called an idiot.

            What is the point of making up phantom citations?

            >Rupert…it’s you who are doing all that you accuse me of. Lying, ridiculing, being sarcastic, obfuscating, and changing the subject. Consult your mirror pal.

            Hmm, you make up citations I never made. Have no understanding of computer modeling yet swear allegiance to them…are completely wrong about some very basic issues. Id say you need to take a little of your own medicine. I don’t know why you have an issue with me anyway. I have said repeatedly I have no issue at all with AGW believers. I think its fine for you to believe in AGW. It’s when you try and force your morality on me, and Al Gore has said this is a moral issue, that I have a problem.

            Its really pretty simple, keep your morality to yourself, don’t try and put it on me. You want your belief system to be treated as science and not religion? Try using a scientific method. Stop with this “the debate is over” BS that Al Gore and many others do. That’s religious “silence the heretic” dogma and you know it. Try coming up with some basic proof of the theory’s, not this “consensus” BS. Such proofs would consist of repeatable experiments and explanations of why predictions go contrary to hypothesis. Failing that, a simple explanation as to why high clergy AGW’ers do not appear to act in a manner consistent with worry over AGW. Al Gore’s energy usage is legendary. Global Warming summits tend to be held in Bali and places like that. Why if there is such consensus that this is dire do the clergy that forms the consensus act in a manner that shows they don’t feel it is dire?

            Failing that, get used to AGW being treated as a religion. I don’t know why it bothers you. You even act like a religious adherent in that regard. Many people are religious. Its really just the zealots who go whacko when someone questions their dogma. Hmmmm, sounds kind of like you.

            Ok, now that’s funny. And so true!

          • dean

            1) You should dig a little deeper. Josh Willis, the oceanographer who published the NASA ocean buoy study…that’s right…the same NASA you describe as guilty of malfeasance when you don’t like their work…explains the results of his research in the following post:

            https://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx

            Note…he says we have recorded 50 YEARS of increasing ocean temparatures prior to the last 4 years, which have been flat, not going lower. He also says that though upper ocean temp increase has stalled, land and air temps have continued to increase, and sea levels have continued to rise.

            2) you are picking nits and making unsubstantiated accusations out of them. Anyway see above. You can’t cite NASA research when it suits you and accuse them of being liars when it doesn’t.

            3) “Movement’ implies an ideology. There is no “ideology on global warming. There is climate science, those who accept the preponderance of evidence, and those who don’t.

            4) The OED…which you also cite when it suits you, defines “consensus” as “general agreement.” There is no queston that there is “general agreement” in the scientific world with respect to global warming and its causes. Every scientific organization that deals in climate supports AGW theory.

            Scientists also can’t “prove” the earth’s crust floats around on gigantic plates that cause mountains to rise and volcanos to errupt. And they can’t “prove” that complex species evolved from single celled creatures. Scientific knowledge at any one time is based on preponderance of evidence, not 100% proof.

            There is “consensus,” as in general agreement, on the key points that the earth has indeed warmed, parking lot readings aside, and that this is caused in large measure by an increase in greenhouse gasses, which has been measured, and that more greenhouse gasses will equal more warming. Beyond that there are a lot of unkowns since they are trying to predict something that has a lot of inherent uncertainty, like what to assume with respect to continued emissions.

            I agree with you on computer modeling. That was my point. Its simply a tool. The first models on the amount of atmospheric warming related to CO2 were done in the 1890s freehand and were surprisingly accurate.

            I don’t have a “non-scientific” background, having published peer review papers on landscape ecology. I do have a “non-computer modeling” background. I leave that work to others.

            Modeling aside, rising air temperatures have been measured, rising ocean temperatures have been documented, rising ocean acidity has been documented, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases have been measured, glacial retreat has been documented, early migrations have been documented, early flowering has been documented, and laboratory experiments on the function of CO2 as a greenhouse gas have been conducted and replicated. Computers or no computers, 2 plus 2 equals 4.

            My apologies on Lord Monckton. It was Jim K that cited him. So who do you cite on this issue Rupert? You claim “legions of scientists that disagree. Who? Name some names and cite a peer reviewed, published paper or 2.

            I did not notice “swearing alleigance” to anyone or anything. As Ronald Reagan said…”there you go again.” Making sh*t up I did not say or do.

            My “issue with you” Rupert, is your insistence, time and again, that one’s acceptance of global warming amounts to a religious belief. It’s your sarcastic way of diminishing those you disagree with. I don’t “believe” in AGW. I simply conclude it is logically true. The ethical issue is not about one’s acceptance of fact. It’s about denying fact and choosing to play roullette with my future, my kid’s future, and the future of 100 million Bangladesees who live within 5 feet of sea level for a start. You constantly claim we liberals want to impose our morals or life ways on you. Au contraire. By advocating doing nothing about a growing and serious problem, it is you trying to impose teh consequences of your lack of environmental ethics on me.

            “Scientific method” is EXACTLY what has been used for decades to document global warming. So what you ask for has already been done. You simply refuse to accept the results because you hate the implications. You might have to nsulate your house. Buy funny light bulbs. Pay more for gasoline. Oy vey is mir!

            I’m always happy to be of amusement to you.

  • Anonymous

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

    Of course it is the concensus side that is spinning the AGW wheel of fortune. Despite the deans and Davids trumpetting one of the AGWers lamest excuses that the skeptics are all in it for the money.

    We got every enviro club in the country riding the AGW train to the bank. Pitching disgustingly rediculous cases with polar bears and all sorts of other nonsense including the sea already rising fast.

    And dean repeatedly asks “And your evidience for this conspiracy of madness is what exactly?”

    Hey dean, have you ever seen a Bill Bradbury power point?

    There’s some madness for you.

    • jim karlock

      *Hey dean, have you ever seen a Bill Bradbury power point? *

      Be careful – he probably believed it. (After all AL Gore is his god.)

      Thanks
      JK

  • Anonymous

    maybe we’ll luck out and stupid Ted will freeze his you-know-what off.

  • Anonymous

    DEMING: Global warming freeze?
    David Deming
    Wednesday, December 10, 2008

    President-elect Barack Obama recently declared his intention to mitigate
    global warming by enacting a cap-and-trade policy that would reduce
    carbon emissions 80 percent by the year 2050.

    But the last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of
    temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed,
    it is now officially over.

    This year began with a severe spell of winter weather in China.
    Observers characterized it as the largest natural disaster to hit China
    in decades. By the end of January, blizzards and cold temperatures had
    killed 60 people and caused millions to lose electric service. Nearly a
    million buildings were damaged and airports had to close. Hong Kong had
    the second-longest cold spell since 1885. A temperature of 33.6 degrees
    Fahrenheit was barely higher than the record low of 32 degrees F set in
    1893.

    Other countries in Asia also experienced record cold. In February, cold
    in the northern half of Vietnam wiped out 40 percent of the rice crop
    and killed 33,000 head of livestock. In India, the city of Mumbai
    recorded the lowest temperatures of the last 40 years. Across India,
    there was more frost damage to crops than at any other time in the last
    30 years.

    In the United States, the weather also was frigid. The city of
    International Falls, Minn,, whose official nickname is the “icebox of
    the nation,” set a new record low temperature of minus 40 degrees F,
    breaking the old record of minus 37 F established in 1967.

    Alaska experienced an unusually cold and wet summer. For the first time
    since the 18th century, Alaskan glaciers grew instead of retreating. In
    Fairbanks, October was the fourth coldest in 104 years of record. Last
    month in Reading, Pa., the temperature stayed below 40 degrees F for six
    consecutive days – the longest November cold spell there since 1903.

    These cold weather events were not abnormal or isolated incidents.
    Global measures of climatic conditions indicate significant cooling.

    A preliminary estimate by the British Met Office says 2008 will be the
    coldest year of the last 10. The extent of global sea ice is at the same
    level it was in 1980. The mean planetary temperature, as monitored by
    satellite, also is the same as in 1980.

    Last March, NASA reported the oceans have been cooling for the last five
    years. Sea level has stopped rising, and Northern Hemisphere cyclone and
    hurricane activity is at a 24-year low.

    Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and
    running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that
    weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to
    long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at
    us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or
    hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom.

    Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact
    dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. In Britain, Parliament is
    intrepidly forging ahead with a bold new plan to cool the climate, even
    as London experienced its first October snowfall since 1934 and Ireland
    went through the coldest October in the last 70 years.

    This is an absurd spectacle. Our advanced civilization is being
    systematically mismanaged by technologically illiterate lawyers
    responding to political pressures from irrational fanatics. Would
    someone please tell these people it is impossible to overturn the laws
    of thermodynamics?

    We cannot improve our economy by artificially forcing people to use
    expensive, unreliable and inefficient energy sources.

    Let the politicians take note. People will not like what you have in
    mind. California is arguably the most liberal state. Yet last month they
    defeated, by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, a law that would have forced
    California utilities to obtain half their electric power from renewable
    sources. What the Obama administration proposes is much more radical.
    Their cap-and-trade proposal will dramatically increase the energy costs
    of the average consumer and likely drive our crippled economy into a
    severe depression.

    To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over.
    It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to
    Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston,
    and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had
    vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence.

    Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control.
    To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.
    ….

    David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National
    Center for Policy Analysis and an associate professor of arts and
    sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

  • Dan

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

    Check out this article. Apparently there are 650 scientists that dissent over man made global warming and they are finally getting some press.

    The U.S. Senate is coming out with a report that details these skeptics and the studies they produce.

    Give up on this alarmism BS!

  • Anonymous

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

    But dean and David assure us those scientists are not real scientists.

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

    POZNAN, Poland – The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

  • jim karlock

    *But dean and David assure us those scientists are not real scientists*

    They would rather listen to science illiterates like Gore & Bradley.

    Thanks
    JK

  • Anonymous

    OK I’ll pretend to be David and dean.

    All of the major scientific organizations are confident and comitted to the IPCC reports and all of the policies recomended to reverse AGW.

    Regarding the growing mass of scientists and peer reviewed science debunking the whole idea?
    Sure that may be happening, but only because the IPCC inspired them.

    • dean

      You should stick with being yourself…whoever you are.

  • Anonymous

    What’s wrong dean,,, CO2 got your tongue?

  • John in Oregon

    In a recent post on another thread I commented about the similarities between 1920-29 and 1998-2008 which are quite striking. I noted the same general conditions apply for each era just with different Government players and the same results.

    The obvious question, will Government policy today follow that old path creating a devastating new and greater depression. Fifty years post the “Great Depression” records have become available with research that shows how the US Government turned a recession for the rest of the world into US national economic disaster from 1929 to the end of 1941.

    The period 1929-41 aptly demonstrates the dangers of Centralized Power. “There is an important lesson to be learned from this episode: When we centralize great responsibility and power in one institution, the FED or Federal and State Government, its failure will have far-reaching and terrible consequences.

    With the parallels between then and now, the obvious question is do the current conditions point to another, modern day Greater Depression. To test this I took a small list of the documented Government actions that caused the Great Depression. I then took that list and tallied todays Federal Government, State Government and proposed State Global Warming initiative, answering the question do these actions exist today?

    1] Tax increase.

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — — Income
    — — Property
    — State Global Warming *YES*
    — — Energy Fees
    — — Energy Production tax
    — — Energy Use tax

    2] Restraint of trade

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *YES*
    — — Energy Exploration restrictions
    — — Energy Production restrictions
    — — Energy Import restrictions
    — — Energy Use restrictions
    — — Mandatory renewable content of electricity
    — — Adopt restrictive greenhouse gas Tailpipe Emission Standards
    — — Impose land use and transportation limitations

    3] All sorts of “public works” programs removed hundreds of thousands of people from the labor market and engaged them in economically wasteful activities.

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *YES*

    4] Price and wage controls prevented market adjustments. This policy massively distorted relative market prices, impairing their ability to function as guides to entrepreneurs.

    — Federal *YES*
    — — Raising wages
    — State *YES*
    — — Raising wages
    — State Global Warming *Not Yet*

    5] Operating regulation of business and enterprise

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *Yes*
    — — Restrictive building codes
    — — Building codes to set maximum water, heating cooling
    — — Arbitrary equipment standards
    — — Electric rates modified to penalize peak demand.
    — — Impose land use and transportation limitations
    — — Mandatory renewable content of electricity
    — — Adopt restrictive greenhouse gas Tailpipe Emission Standards
    — — Impose land use and transportation limitations
    — — Onerous monitoring and reporting schemes

    6] Imposing other new costs on enterprise.

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *Yes*
    — — Restrictive building codes
    — — Electric rates modified to penalize peak demand.
    — — Mandatory renewable content of electricity
    — — Adopt restrictive greenhouse gas Tailpipe Emission Standards
    — — Impose land use and transportation limitations
    — — Onerous monitoring and reporting schemes

    7] Subsidy and relief schemes

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *Yes*
    — — Mandatory renewable content of electricity
    — — Mandatory Ethanol
    — — Mandatory Bio-Diesel

    8] Keeping commodity prices high

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *Yes*
    — — Mandatory renewable content of electricity
    — — Mandatory Ethanol
    — — Mandatory Bio-Diesel

    9] Government debt skyrocketed

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *Not Yet*

    10] Government’s share of GNP increased

    — Federal *YES*
    — State *YES*
    — State Global Warming *Yes*

    Obviously this is nothing like a detailed scholarly study. It does show Government moving in the direction of the same levers of power that created the Great Depression.

    A description of the Great Depression seems appropriate, “bureaucracy, controlling our every act, destroying what equality we have attained, reducing us eventually to the condition of impoverished slaves of the state.”

    Dangers of Centralized Power

    There is an important lesson to be learned from the Great Depression: When we centralize great responsibility and power in one institution, its failure will have far-reaching and terrible consequences.

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)