Mad. Angry. Livid. Outraged.

Jonathan Poisner

Mad. Angry. Livid. Outraged. Pissed off. Frustrated.

I can’t think of enough different synonyms for “mad” to express my feelings upon waking up to the latest evidence of the Bush administration’s depraved indifference when it comes to protecting future generations from the consequences of the climate crisis.

Blocking California, Oregon, and a dozen other states from stricter tailpipe emission standards flies in the face of science, the law, and basic human decency.

While it will probably be overturned by the Courts, a year or more may be lost in the meantime, and with the climate crisis upon us, we don’t have more years to waste – the 7 years so far of the Bush Administration have already cost us far too much.

So as I sit here typing on a vacation day, it’s easy to go from anger to despair. To throw up my hands in disgust and go watch a movie or otherwise escape.

But I’m working really hard to instead travel from anger to conviction.

Conviction to give more both to groups and candidates I believe in who are working hard to get to a filibuster-proof pro-environment majority in the Senate, not to mention a President with a brain and a heart.

Conviction to give more time and money locally on behalf of those who take seriously our responsibility to future generations—who understand Oregon needs to be a leader, a beacon for the nation on how to build a sustainable economy that provides good jobs and a healthy environment together.

So yes, I’m mad, angry, livid, outraged, pissed off, and frustrated.

But I’m also dedicated, committed, enthusiastic, vigilant, and ready to fight.

In 2008, we will take our country back.

Comments

  • Ley Garnett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If you tortured yourself into listening to Bush's news conference this morning--he added yet another incredible factor to global warming. He actually said using more coal is one of the answers. That of course after he called for increased nuclear power. Here is an AP transcript:

    Bush: "But if you're somebody that says greenhouse gases are of vital national interest, then you ought to be saying I'm for the development of nuclear power plants. It is by far the best solution to making sure we have economic growth and at the same time be good stewards of the environment.

    So when you couple increasing CAFE standards with using alternative fuels, which deals with the automobile area, as well as a good strategy on electricity, then all of a sudden you begin to see a strategy unfold. And by the way, the final thing is, is that we do have 250 years of coal. And I believe we can develop technologies that will enable us to use that coal in an environmentally friendly way."

  • (Show?)

    Great piece, Jonathan. I was having a conversation to this effect earlier today.

    Steve Novick, who worked for the Justice Department suing corporate polluters, released a statement on the issue.

    It really is important to turn that anger into action. This comes on the heels of Israel announcing a pledge to put 100,000 full-electric cars on the road over the next two years. Where are they getting the cars? France. Israel is one of our closest allies, and it's absurd that we wouldn't be able to export American electric cars there. But we can't.

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Some help with synonyms from former President Jed Bartlet:

    "Vexed, riled, irked."

    "Ticked, honked, pissed."

    (In response to the GOP Convention).

    The Santos Administration will never interfere with states' rights to protect the environment.

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's also worth noting here that U.S. Senate Candidate and Speaker of the Oregon House Jeff Merkley expressed dissatisfaction with the half-measure Energy Bill and a push to do much more for our environment.

    Let's remember that it was the CAFE standards in the Energy Bill that provoked the EPA's preemption of state standards.

    In Oregon, Jeff Merkley supported Oregon's adoption of California's standard in the House of Representatives.

    He also successfully pushed for a drastic evolution in the state's energy policy by:

    -Requiring a 75 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 -Requiring 25 percent total use of renewable energy sources by 2025 -Supporting the implementation of biofuels and wave energy -Signing on to California's emissions control standard -Promoted energy conservation in all state buildings

    It'll take more than a Democratic President to advance these at the federal level. We need a senator like Jeff Merkley to redeliver on the successes of Oregon in a new environmental majority in the U.S. Senate.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Bush,

    The oil companies, the car makers, the nuclear and coal industries salute you. Those of us who care about this wonderful planet we call home believe you dwell already in the lowest level of Hell.

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whoops:

    ...and a push...

    Should read:

    and pushed

    Too many clauses in that sentence.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Jack Murray | Dec 20, 2007 2:19:55 PM It's also worth noting here that U.S. Senate Candidate and Speaker of the Oregon House Jeff Merkley expressed dissatisfaction with the half-measure Energy Bill and a push to do much more for our environment. In Oregon, Jeff Merkley supported Oregon's adoption of California's standard in the House of Representatives. He also successfully pushed for a drastic evolution in the state's energy policy by: -Requiring a 75 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 -Requiring 25 percent total use of renewable energy sources by 2025 -Supporting the implementation of biofuels and wave energy -Signing on to California's emissions control standard -Promoted energy conservation in all state buildings It'll take more than a Democratic President to advance these at the federal level. We need a senator like Jeff Merkley to redeliver on the successes of Oregon in a new environmental majority in the U.S. Senate.

    Agreed. And this is also why I like John Kroger's emphasis and priorites in refocusing the AG's office to do more to hold polluters accountable.

  • BHamm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack,

    I blogged about Merkley's foray into renewables awhile back, but I still don't see Oregon taking any steps to invest in wave energy, etc.

    Can you elaborate on what "supporting the implementation of biofuels and wave energy" and "promoted energy conservation in all state buildings" actually entail? I'm not much of a state leg wonk, and those sound like some pretty broad items.

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BHamm, ask and ye shall receive.

    Biofuels From Oregon League of Conservation Voters (Mr. Poisner's shop):

    HB 2210 reduces air pollution and our dependence on imported fossil fuels by establishing a statewide standard and tax credits that allow for the blending of cleaner, locally produced renewable fuels in gasoline and diesel sold in Oregon. Rather than sending the billions of dollars overseas, HB 2210 will ensure that a portion of every dollar we spend on gas and diesel at the pump is reinvested in the local economy, supporting Oregon farmers and other local businesses. Biodiesel and other biofuels also emit significantly lower levels of pollutants into our air when burned, helping promote healthier air.

    From what I've heard, think 'woody biomass'.

    Wave Energy

    According to the Guv's website, the Speaker supported HB 2925 and helped get it through the process:

    HB 2925: As one of the Governor’s energy priorities, this legislation exempts wave energy projects off Oregon’s coast generating five megawatts or less from regulations of hydroelectric projects if a license is not required under the Federal Power Act. This legislation also allows university research to continue to test wave energy devices off the Oregon coast.

    Basically, it encourages research into wave energy by removing bureaucratic obstacles.

    Hope this helps.

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oops, left out energy efficiency.

    Form OLCV again:

    HB 2876 was a significant step towards energy conservation. This bill would have required the Department of Energy to reduce energy consumption by 20% in existing state buildings by 2015. Every watt of electricity saved through better conservation is an important part of combating global warming.

    This bill failed, but I think it's coming back to require LEED-certification on new buildings.

  • Admiral Naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I want to work hard to travel from anger to conviction.

    As in, travelling from us being angry to the Bush League being convicted.

  • Jim Edelson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack, I agree with everything you write except for this:

    Let's remember that it was the CAFE standards in the Energy Bill that provoked the EPA's preemption of state standards.

    Let's not grant Bush that frame. It is almost certain that they would have rejected the waiver no matter what was in the energy bill. That was just a convenient frame.

    This was handled just like the Iraq war: the facts were made to fit the policy. From today's Detroit News:

    "The CEOs of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler met recently with Vice President Dick Cheney, urging the administration to reject the waiver."

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Bush and the administration should not have blocked the West Coast emissions standards. But before we make too much fun of our current President, take a look at this report.

    And what about nuclear power? It appears there are now technologies to greatly reduce the spent fuel storage problem.

    Instead of LNG terminals, how about new nuclear power plants at the mouth of the Columbia and in Coos Bay? How about replacing the power lost by removing Snake River Dams (another environmental goal that is contrary to reducing greenhouse emissions, since hydropower doesn't produce any) with nuclear power plants and CO2 neutral coal plants?

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    By the way, my first link in the previous post is to a large pdf on new technologies to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions from new coal plants.

    To the extent our current President has thought this through (???), he clearly believes that it would be easier to deal with global warming and CO2 emission through new technologies rather than radical conservation measures. Which is the Bjorn Lomborg thesis - let's make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.

  • BHamm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack, that did help. I really need to follow Salem more. Of course, until this kid is off to college (in 16 1/2 years), that probably won't happen.

  • BHamm (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And since you've now become my go-to for this kind of information, when will wave energy be available for purchase?

    Are wave buoys going to be state-owned or produced in the private sector? I check the box on my PGE bill to get renewable energy....will wave energy become part of that?

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)
    Posted by: BHamm | Dec 20, 2007 5:24:09 PM

    Well, that depends on what the research brings to bear, I suppose. Right now the focus is on pilot projects, such as the one in Reedsport that will be maintained by PNGC Power (a collective of users) and commercial developers.

    Here's more about Wave Energy than I could tell you without charging.

    Needless to say, if we want clean energy sources and real change for our environment, it's clear that we need new leadership in the White House and an Oregon Senator who will work with Ron Wyden instead of canceling him out.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for putting my exact feelings into some coherent prose, Jonathan. It's so hard to look back on the past 7 years and not think of them as completely wasted.

    And in a strange coincidence, when Europe announced yesterday that they are moving forward with a plan to cut tailpipe emissions 20 percent by 2012, EU officials were attacked for being "too conservative." It's like a whole other universe over there.

    But as my husband reminds me almost daily, we likely just have to wait for few more months to get a national climate change policy.

  • CBP (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While I agree wholeheartedly that the emissions standards need to be tightened on a progressive scale that takes into account the ability for the technology to be economically viable enough to not cause a mad rush to issue exemptions I disagree that we should have a hodgepodge of different laws across the country that will cause an overburdening on any one state that has looser standards.

    While I agree that states should have more power in their destiny than the federal government it does entertain me to hear some people complain when the feds come out with a new rule or law that may limit a state to control its own destiny while the same group is the first to cry that FEMA (federal agency!) is slow to respond to bail out people that make poor decisions on where to live (read Katrina!)

  • TR (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So the socialist dictators who want to control how and where we the people live; how we the people move about and what kind of vehicle we the people use for travel; what we the people eat; who and what should be taxed other than themselves; and based on flawed and opinionated science now want to take back “our” country back. From whom? We the people?

    The science is flawed because it lacks quantitative facts that man had anything to do with the melting of the ice age. The science is also flawed because of evidence of palm trees from a warmer climate has been discovered under/near one of the Earth’s polar caps. The science carries an opinionated prospective because those claiming global warming is man made fail to call for population controls as the eventual definitive response/solution.

    Moreover, there are other factors in the overall equation. They include the economic factor on we the people of higher priced vehicles due to stricter standards, and the economic factor to the builders of vehicles to meet different standards for different states and how that applies to family wage job retention in the US. The housing industry and the auto industry top the list for having the greatest number of private sector jobs tied to them. Then there is the engineering factor. Can developing technology truly meet the stricter standards? And if so, on what time schedule?

    The flawed and opinionated science as to man’s role in the natural occurrence of global warming oratory and sensationalized rhetoric continues to be recited over and over as if to brainwash we the people, Yet the narration rarely offers a solution from economists how we the people (especially the middle class and those of modest means who’s income is already falling behind to both inflation and taxes) can afford to even maintain the current standard of living with similar products and services used. The commentary itself also lacks any reality check developments from technical engineers offering little more than subjective criticism and mouth piece fluff while scoffing at the jobs and the industries targeted to come up with the real engineered technological solutions.

    Finally, there is integrity. The majority of we the people in our democratic society with freedoms based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights pay taxes and vote daily by driving our cars and trucks. However those who deliver the most pungent vocalization against the auto and oil industries, and want to control the lives of the rest of we the people undoubtedly themselves use taxpayer subsidized transit (busses that only get five miles per gallon with no call for a mandate for much improved standards) and/or ride a bicycle thereby freeloading on the infrastructure used subsidized by all drivers who actually do pay transportation taxes. Furthermore, those who ride bicycles probably don’t even come to a complete stop at stop signs and routinely ignore other traffic control devices. How then can their rant for controls on others have any merit when they appropriate their own travel on the financial backs of mostly middle class taxpayers, and can’t even follow simple rules of the road that are in place for the safety of everybody? The word hypocrite comes to mind. Yes, we the people need do need to take our country back, but from the socialists that want to control and extinguish the middle class, not visa versa.

  • CBP (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TR - In the words of Homer J Simpson

    WOO-HOO!!!!

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There's on adjective you missed: futile.

    Tailpipe emissions are already monitored by the DEQ. I realize this movement suggests higher standards, but let's be realistic, at some point we've regulated tailpipes out of the equation when the variable we were trying to solve for was the car.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There's one adjective you missed: futile.

    Tailpipe emissions are already monitored by the DEQ. I realize this movement suggests higher standards, but let's be realistic, at some point we've regulated tailpipes out of the equation when the variable we were trying to solve for was the car.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jonathan Poisner... and with the climate crisis upon us, we don’t have more years to waste

    JK: Actually the world has been cooling since 1998, the year tied with 1934 as the warmest since the “little ice age”. NASA data maintained by one of Gores’s “science” advisors clearly shows this. Have a look, its considered the best available data in the world: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt (Even this high quality data exaggerates recent warming. See surfacestations.org/)

    Record cold is starting to breakout all over:.

    South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

    Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered. ..... Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years. From: washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140&template=printart

    Then there is this near admission of a lying: 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, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.

    PS: CO2 is not the major “greenhouse” gas, water vapor is. See: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 PS2: Historically, temperature rise has occurred BEFORE CO2 rise. See realclimate.org/index.php?p=13, be sure to note the twisted logic to try to pin the blame on CO2 after admitting CO2 did not start the warming at the end of ice ages

    BTW realclimate is run be the creator of the fraudulent “hockey stick” temperature curve that Al Gore uses, so it should be credible to you.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    Okay, so let's pretend that the world isn't going to end. Let's pretend that humyns aren't responsible for climate change.

    The point stands that I want a fuel cell car. I am so sick of paying ridiculous gas prices while oil companies post record profits. I want a fuel cell car that will go 200 miles on four ounces of water. The only emission? It reverts back to water. I know of several patented designs, and I know that GM and Ford have had access to them for more than a decade.

    It would also mean that when I ride my bike (I'm not making you ride a bike, Jim, but I enjoy the exercise) I won't have to choke on the carbon monoxide (a lethal gas) from auto emissions. There is no case against renewable energy, kids. Only several Potemkin villages.

  • (Show?)

    sure doesn't take long for the Cascade Crackpots to sniff out a climate change post!

    I will now present an appropriately detailed rebuttal: Nu-uh!

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Once again Jim Karlock pops up spouting his usual contrarian propaganda. No matter how many times he's proven wrong, his line never changes.

    Karlock repeats his usual lie: Actually the world has been cooling since 1998, the year tied with 1934 as the warmest since the “little ice age”. His "proof" for this lie? NASA data maintained by one of Gores’s “science” advisors clearly shows this. Have a look, its considered the best available data in the world: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt

    Karlock says the "world" is cooling and backs up his lie with "NASA data" that applies NOT to the world, but ONLY to the lower 48 states. The entire world (which indisputably has been heating up) has a surface area of 196,935,000 square miles. The 48 contiguous states have a total land area of about 2,810,000 square miles. That's about 1.4% of the total surface area. Climate data for 1.4% of the planet CANNOT rebut a global trend.

    Karlock has made this bogus argument before, and several people have pointed out this basic flaw, so Karlock KNOWS FOR A FACT his position is completely unsupported AND that he's been publicly exposed for it. Nevertheless, he keeps on repeating it. Since he shows such utter disregard for both facts and basic logic, it's obvious he's both an ideologue and an idiot.

  • (Show?)

    CBP,

    The problem with FEMA was that the Republicans, for all their spurious claims to care about our security, had been Norquisting it for years, starving it and reducing its capacity, topped off by treating the directorship as a plum for cronies comparable to the ambassadorship to Andorra.

    Then, having created an inefficient and ineffective agency, when it failed in response to Katrina, they had the nerve to offer it up as "proof" that government doesn't work.

    <hr/>

    Jim K, up to now I'd thought that perhaps you were someone I should take seriously sometimes. (Others who have interacted with you longer will doubtless snicker at my foolish naiveté.) Now I know you're just a disingenuous sophist.

    I'd bet good money that if I had time to track your writings from a few years back I'd find ones pointing out correctly the methodological flaws of just citing "record" highs. The same applies to lows.

    Johannesburg may not have had snow for 26 years, but when I was there 18 years ago, it got below freezing at night in the winter. It doesn't snow much because it doesn't rain much, about the same as eastern Washington, and it's a summer rainfall zone.

    And as I'm sure you're perfectly aware, a consistent prediction of the consequences of the greenhouse effect has been increased climatic volatility. Seeing more highs and lows is exactly what you'd expect, along with more variation in the frequency and severity of storms.

    Since you are aware that all of the temperature variations we are talking about are within a general holocene warm period, you also know presumably that non-human-caused climatic variation in the past has been disastrous to human societies.

    The stakes are much bigger now because the human population is so much bigger, and so much more vulnerable due to wide-scale interdependence and dependence on complex social structures for survival, starting with food.

    The question is not just whether human caused climate change fits within parameters of variation known at different time horizons. That's an idiotic point, really. We're not in a hot period (when palm trees were at the poles, Oregon was underwater) or an ice age. So what?

    Human agricultural and industrial societies have existed perhaps 10,000 years, and agriculture as the dominant mode of subsistence for maybe half that, maybe less. Understanding the historical and potential human consequences of climatic variation -- social, economic, health, political -- whether human caused or not, needs to be examined on that time scale.

    Likewise the meaning of change, whether human caused or not, has to be looked at in terms of human consequences, not whether the fluctuations fit in parameters we know to have existed previously. When a cold period ended thousands of years ago, that had drawn down sea levels such that humans occupied coastal areas that now are underwater and land bridges existed across what are straits and channels today, the change was gradual. The populations displaced from gradually inundated coastal areas were small. Their wealth, such as it was, was ephemeral and mobile.

    Current variations, in whatever framing parameters you wish to place them, are both temporally much sharper and more sudden, and much harder for humans to adapt to, in terms of the potential losses at stake and capacities to relocate. How much those difficulties are mitigated by technologies we have is still not clear. Adaptation to Hurricane Katrina in these respects may have been particularly poor, but it also illustrates the low baseline from which we start. And that's assuming that Katrina represents a relatively bad disaster in the scale we face, which isn't really clear to me.

    The question we face is whether our adaptations are going to include serious efforts to change the human input into the climate variations, particularly the ones that produce escalating feedback effects, or not.

    The '90s were relatively hot, though perhaps not so much more so than the '30s (whose climate disasters were pretty considerable btw). Maybe the '00s will be relatively cold, though as with the "high" records the "cold" ones may only be a tiny bit colder than the previous decades ago.

    But when was the last time that the north polar icecap was melting the way it is? The tundra emerging from permafrost to the extent it is?

    The fact that historically temp has risen before CO2 rise should be no comfort at all. This describes non-human caused fluctuations. Temp rises, melting releases carbon into atmosphere -- and the carbon release pushes temp rise further.

    Now we have human caused greenhouse effect bringing that melting on line when it wouldn't have otherwise -- and we can expect the post-warming "natural" CO2 (not directly caused by human activity but a secondary consequence to it) rise seen in previous cycles to happen again.

    Finally, please do not accuse me personally of changing my arguments even if you see my arguments as a departure from what some other people argued in the past about the meaning of "record highs" as supposed proof of global warming. I didn't accept those arguments then and I don't accept yours about the lows now. On the other hand, I do wonder if you are holding the arguments about lows to the same standard I expect you did against spurious arguments about highs, when holding those arguments to that standard fit your outcome preferences.

  • Jonathan Radmacher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While I think I understand people's policy-based outrage, this is really just pre-emption, right? States can't legislate in areas where Congress has indicated an intent to occupy the field. What I'm interested in knowing is whether Democrats anticipated that this would happen, because at least in hindsight, it's pretty obvious.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris Lowe The question we face is whether our adaptations are going to include serious efforts to change the human input into the climate variations, particularly the ones that produce escalating feedback effects, or not. JK: But the first question is: if and how much is man’s contribution to any warming. If it is small, as I think, then our ability to prevent warming, by modifying our behavior, is also small. That is the bottom line.

    It matters not whether or not our climate is careening our of control, if man is not causing it, man cannot stop it by ceasing some imaginary cause.

    The next point is: is there anything unusual about today’s climate? The answer is clearly NO. Our hottest year, 1998, is officially tied with 1934, a time well before most of the CO2 increase. So, where is the evidence of a problem? There is NONE. Only computer based speculations.

    Chris Lowe But when was the last time that the north polar icecap was melting the way it is? JK: NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE, Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the continents May 15, 1932 New York Times.

    Expert Says Arctic Sea Will Soon Be an Open Sea (New York Times, Feb 20, 1969)

    Chris Lowe The tundra emerging from permafrost to the extent it is? JK Perhaps the medieval warming period? That is the carbon dates showing up on the material being uncovered by the Greenland ice.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: TR | Dec 20, 2007 8:52:22 PM So the socialist dictators who want to control...

    (scroll)

  • (Show?)

    So there's something else at work here that's deeper than the environmental issue: Since when does an appointed bureaucrat have the power to over-rule 17 state legislatures?

    I can grant the Congress may have the power to do so, but I seriously challenge the right of anyone in the executive branch to do so. I feel the same way about this week's "decision" by the FCC to change ownership rules. I don't know the legal distinctions, but to me, that's legislating law, not executing it.

    In the meantime, Congress sits around fighting over the bacon in gargantuan spending bills that are hopelessly out of control. Something is seriously wrong with our government, when Congress spends all its time scrapping for take-home money and political appointees are making fundamental policy decisions that effect people's lives.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe sure doesn't take long for the Cascade Crackpots to sniff out a climate change post! I will now present an appropriately detailed rebuttal: Nu-uh! JK: Simply amazing how you can refuse to look at the evidence: 1. Al Gore’s hockey stick temperature chart: Disproven by the NAS report and Wegman report among others. 2. Historically, CO2 increase lags temperature increase. 3. CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of greenhouse effect, H2O is much more effective. 4. Man only emits a single digit fraction of annual CO2 emissions. But I respect your right to silly religious beliefs just as I respect Bush’s right to nutty belief’s. Just don’t try to force them on others.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    Jim Karlock vomits the Newsmax/Inhofe kool-aid which is basically a flat-out lie. Inhofe and crew claim (wrongly) that the NAS' 2006 study "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" (PDF) refutes the Mann findings which are but one of the basis of the "hockey stick" chart. From the executive summary:

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.

    I could spend days wading into depth's of your nonsense, debunking the horse-shit which you have dutifully swallowed and throw out like white noise to drown out the overwhelming evidence, but what's the point?

    You are simply full of shit.

  • (Show?)

    For JK:

    Academy affirms hockey-stick graph

    Inhofe Lies to Criminal About Global Warming

    I could go on and on, but those two alone blow the crap out of JK's unadulterated bullshit, but I need to hit the hay.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lestatdelc: Jim Karlock vomits the Newsmax/Inhofe kool-aid which is basically a flat-out lie. Inhofe and crew claim (wrongly) that the NAS' 2006 study "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" (PDF) refutes the Mann findings which are but one of the basis of the "hockey stick" chart. From the executive summary:

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.
    

    JK: Why are you hiding your real name? Is it so that you can re-appear with a new name after you are proven wrong?

    You really need to look beyond the summary: ---------------------------------- From page 21 (sheet36) Bold Added ------------------------------------ The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. ....[Here is the often heard statement that we are the warmest in 1000 years. It is given “less confidence” than “plausable”. Effectively, it is shown to be baseless.]

    If you paid attention, you might have noticed that the committee re-affirmed the existence of the “little ice age” and the medieval warm period, features missing from Mann. Therefore Mann is proven wrong (and, for other resons, probably a fraud.) End of Al Gore’s #1 posterchild.

    They also said that we are the warmest in 400 years - which just happens to be the warmest since the “little ice age”. Well Duhh - we are warming up after a little ice age. Why are you so worried?

    You also forgot the recent NASA revisions to the world’s best temperature record mentioned in my previous post. 1998 is no longer thought o be the warmest, it is now considered tied with 1934. 1934 was before the main CO2 emissions. We have a ½ century of CO2 increase WITHOUT a temperature increase (1998=1934). The CO2 warming hypotheses is therefore disproven by that one fact alone.

    Lets review: The hockeystick is proven wrong. CO2 does not cause warming. Of course, as shown above: H2O is the major warming gas, not CO2 Historically, temperature leads CO2 proving that CO2 was not the cause. (Surely you agree that cause cannot follow effect)

    What is left of your case for the mankind, chicken little, guilt trip?

    In the spirit of your comment: Go vomit on yourself.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)
    If you paid attention, you might have noticed that the committee re-affirmed the existence of the “little ice age” and the medieval warm period, features missing from Mann. Therefore Mann is proven wrong (and, for other resons, probably a fraud.) End of Al Gore’s #1 posterchild.

    Wrong JK. What part of: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years." Do you not get?

    Are you really that dense to not get that the above that the basic conclusions are AFFIRMED and that they are saying that prior to 1100 years ago the data is not as realiable than the data sets going from 900 - 1600 ad, or the quite realiable data from 1600 to the present?

    Beyond that, you and the other deniers ignore the more salient pint, as the summary states:

    "Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."

    What I highlighted alone destroys your moronic drivel that Mann was proven wrong (which this report AFFIRMS the basic conclusions Mann presents)

    You are simply flat out full of shit JK. You ignore what the report says, strip of context one passage then falsely present it as proving the report says the opposite of what it does.

    You also forgot the recent NASA revisions to the world’s best temperature record mentioned in my previous post. 1998 is no longer thought o be the warmest, it is now considered tied with 1934. 1934

    Wrong. It was a correction to North American American surface temperature data sets, not GLOBAL mean temperature which still shows the steady increase. This is what happens when denier and political hacks pull single data points or data sets out of their context and claim the impact of their hackery proves something it is not.

    Once again JK, you are simply full of shit on this.

  • (Show?)

    Good luck Lestat.

    I've pointed out the North Am temp vs northern hemisphere fallacy to Karlock at least twice.

    He just keeps going back to the same mantra like some sort of autistic monk from a Connecticut Yankee........

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK: Why are you hiding your real name?

    Is it so that you can re-appear with a new name after you are proven wrong?

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    JK, what are you blathering about?

    I have always posted here with this screen name (actually have used it on the net since 1991) and almost every regular here knows my real name Mitch Gore. I have also advocated that Kari set up account registrations to prevent name jacking.

    Beyond that, YOu are the nitwit proven wrong tie and time again, so all you are left with is bloviating about people's screen names. Comical.

  • Joanne Rigutto (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Those people who say that we are now warmer than we have ever been in the last mellenium and those who say that the melting on Greenland is catastrophic, should to read this or do a search on the web on the history of Greenland -

    Greenland Environment Studies of environmental conditions, climate, and their interactions have produced important new information relevant to Norse extinction in Greenland. Most revealing is the detailed evidence of climatic changes that occurred in the northwestern Atlantic beginning in the early 1300s. Changes in atmospheric temperature are recorded in such diverse materials as glacier ice derived from snow falling on the Greenland Ice Cap, fossil vegetation and pollen deposited annually in lake sediments, chemical signatures in isotopic composition of sea sediments, animal and human bones, and even the species of insect pests that accompanied Vikings and their animals as they settled new lands. These indicators clearly suggest that the climate was cooling in the 14th century, and that the Greenlandic environment had been depleted of its "natural capital"--its previously untapped grasslands and animal resources-over 500 years of farming practices in this delicate arctic climate. Cores taken from the ocean bottom west of Iceland show evidence that the ocean conditions between the 8th and 12th centuries were relatively calm and that little sea ice was present to hinder navigation. The build-up of sea ice beginning in the 13th century correspond with evidence from ice cores whose layers of annual snowfall show isotopic evidence that the 14th century had the coldest climate known in Greenland during the past 700 years. Such conditions would have severely strained the farming resources of the Western Settlement and could well have caused its collapse.

    And this - The History of Greenland by Murray Lundberg The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk. The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.

    Both of these excerpts are about Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which Mr. Gore has down played. I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, but it sure seems that the MWP was much warmer than our current global temps. One of the things I think that a lot of people miss is the fact that unlike our homes, we don't get to decide how warm or cold the out doors are going to be. At least not to the extent that Mr. Gore and the IPCC say that we do and can. I can't help but question the motives of someone who is banging the drum so loudly for global warming when that same individual is positioned to gain so much financially from the panic he is causing.

    I also have a really big problem with people like Banki Moon announcing, at the conference in Bali, that we can now choose to travel down one of two roads in regards to global warming - one that leads to a cooler planet, or at least one that doesn't warm quite so fast, and one that leads to oblivion. That was a bit over the top.

    On the other hand, I am very concerned at the way that the federal government is actively attempting to trump states' rights by restricting a state's ability to impose stricter rules on various products and crops than the fed's own rules. If the people of Oregon, California, etc. want stricter pollution controls on vehicles or to mandate the use of bio fuels, etc. as long as the state is meeting a minimum that the federal government has set, the fed ought to keep it's nose where it belongs and not in our business. The fed limiting the states' ability to impose sticter pollution standards echo's USDA's move to restrict a state's ability to regulate the planting of crops that the USDA has deregulated. GMO alfalfa anyone?

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mitch Gore YOu are the nitwit proven wrong tie and time again, so all you are left with is bloviating about people's screen names. Comical. JK: Actually I am just finishing up a video on climate (with a real scientist, who has published many, many papers) and don’t have time to spend educating scientific illiterates just now.

    I'll rip your argument apart tomorrow.

    BTW have you considered working on your manner (you know the name calling and insults) - it reflects poorly on progressives.

    Thanks JK

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom Civiletti: As Earth Warms Up, Tropical Virus Moves to Italy NYT: Aided by global warming and globalization, Castiglione di Cervia has the dubious distinction of playing host to the first outbreak in modern Europe of a disease that had previously been seen only in the tropics.(bold added)

    JK: Of course New York used to have malaria. It is not a tropical disease.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: jim karlock | Dec 23, 2007 4:04:39 AM BTW have you considered working on your manner (you know the name calling and insults) - it reflects poorly on progressives.

    I'll give your suggestion all the due consideration it deserves.

  • Joanne Rigutto (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for the link Tom. I'm subscribed to the ProMed mailing list and had seen a posting on chikungunya but hadn't paid much attention to it as my main interest is foreign animal diseases and their epidemiology. According to the NYT article it was international trade that introduced the tiger mosquito to Italy. Where the virus came from is unknown according to the article, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the introduced mosquitos were carrying it. England is having the same problem with Bluetongue virus (BTV-8) right now. It's felt by epidemiologists there that the culicoides midges carrying the virus were blown across the channel and have now infected a substantial portion of the country. There is a good chance that West Nile Virus was introduced into the USA via international trade by infected mosquitos or birds, the insects would have come in unbeknownst to the importers as hitch hikers, the birds could have made it through quaranteen carrying the virus and then have infected native or innadvertently imported mosquitos which have then aided in the spread or the virus across the country. Remember, with WNV, corvids are the vector that moves the virus from one region to another and the mosquito moves the virus from the birds to mammals like humans and horses. In Australia there is a pretty large outbreak of Equine Influenza, and that was introduced by horses imported and the virus escaped the quaranteen facility for various reasons and was spread around New South Wales and Queensland through many routes not the least of which were probably human and equipment movements.

    Something people also need to realize when considering insect vectors in disease epidemiology, is that some individual bugs may adapt to new environmental conditions. If even a few survive which are more resistant for what ever reason, to new environmental conditions, be they warming/cooling local conditions, or the ability to over winter in sheltered areas in and around houses etc., they will be there when the weather turns more favorable in the spring/summer to multiply, or their eggs will be there to produce a new crop of vectors. And then if you have infected people, in the case of a disease like chikungunya, who can serve as active reservoirs, the mosquitos then could serve as vectors to spread the virus from person to person.

    England is going to be in the same situation with BTV-8 next spring/summer/fall. It's finally gotten cold enough to kill the midges, or at least most of them, but next in 2008 there will still be a huge reservoir of virus in the sheep and cattle population for the new crop of midges to become infected and from there spread the virus on to new territories. Unfortunately that particular virus seems to come back more virulent the second year than it was the first. That, if it happens, will be due to the virus's own nature, and any lack of vaccination of the end hosts which would of course provide a reservoir of virus for the insects to spread around to other animals, more than any warming of the climate.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The NYT article is not about malaria, which is caused by a protozoan, but about chikungunya, which is caused by a virus. Chikungunya is related to dengue fever and is a tropical disease.

    As far as the connection to global warming, the article says:

    "But the immigrants spreading the disease were not humans but insects: tiger mosquitoes, who can thrive in a warming Europe."

  • Joanne Rigutto (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My next question is, given that humans will be the reservoir for the virus, can tiger mosquitos survive in an urban environment under the climatic conditions that have been in existance for the last 100 years, and if not, can indeginous mosquitos become vectors for the virus? If indegenous mosquitos can be vectors for the virus, or if the tiger mosquito can survive with the aid of a condition, such as urbanization, that can make the local environment more favorable to the mosquito wintering over in that specific location, will the virus continue to spread?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This information on the CDC site [governnment funded] suggests that numerous species of mosquito can carry the virus: Chikungunya Fever Fact Sheet

    So once Chikungunya is established in a temperate climate area with mosquito populations, we can expect it to spread northward.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lestatdelc Wrong JK. What part of: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. ..." Do you not get? JK: This part: Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. (Page 111). That doesn’t sound very confidant to me. Note that A.D. 1600 is 400 years ago and was in the little ice age. Sure we warmed after the little ice age. (Are you unable to understand that the summary does not match the actual report? Just like the IPCC. )

    Then there is the Wegman report, also National Acadamy of Sciences. First the background: MM03/05a/05b revealed that you can take red noise and put it into the algorithm used, by Mann, in MBH98 and get the famous hockey stick. You can remove the bristle cone pines from the data set and the hockey stick disappears. If you use the correct data centering methodology, the hockey stick disappears.

    National Acadamy of Sciences statistician Wegman described the above criticisms as MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling

    Mann is simply wrong and probably a fraud.

    lestatdelc Beyond that, you and the other deniers ignore the more salient pint, as the summary states:

    "Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence." JK: How about: Greenland ice cores DO NOT SHOW recent times to be abnormal. Antarctic ice cores DO NOT SHOW recent times to be abnormal. Ocean sediment studies DO NOT SHOW recent times to be abnormal.

    BTW the peer review process fell apart in the paleoclimatology field due to in breeding: Wegman: page 4: In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. JK: This debunks the claim that MM98 false conclusions don’t matter because they are supported by other “scientists”. They other “scientists” are probably NOT independent.

    Wegman: page 4: It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. JK: If MBH had bothered to consult with competent stasticians at his own university, he would not have made these mistakes. Of course he would not have been able to scare the world either.

    lestatdelc Wrong. It was a correction to North American American surface temperature data sets, not GLOBAL mean temperature which still shows the steady increase. JK: OK, so you think the rest of the world, which has shitty data, warmed and the tiny little USA, which has the most accurate data didn’t warm. Laughable.

    Guess you missed this (and others): “our analysis does suggest that nonclimatic effects are present in the gridded temperature data used by the IPCC and that they likely add up to a net warming bias at the global level that may explain as much as half the observed land-based warming trend.” ( McKitrick, R. R., and P. J. Michaels, 2007. Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465.)

    Mr. Gore is full of shit as usual.

    Thanks JK

  • Joanne Rigutto (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom,

    So if chikungunya can be spread by indeginous native mosquitos, and becomes established in the human population of Italy, or any other temperate region, then it would most likely be the movement of the reservoir, that is the movement of infected humans, that would be responsible for the spread of the disease, not necessarily the movement of mosquitos. Humans are capable of moving much farther than a mosquito if one were to discount the movement of mosquitos through contaminated goods and materials - which is how the tiger mosquitos probably got to Italy in the first place. Not so much due to global climate change.

connect with blueoregon