Oregon Climate Action: Why We Can’t Wait

Jonathan Poisner

I've been thinking about global warming a lot lately.  The latest scientific research suggests the impacts of global warming are coming faster and more furiously than had been previously projected.   

That said, we also have a better opportunity than ever before to take meaningful steps to combat global warming at both the national and state levels.  That’s because elected national and local leaders ran their campaigns on promises that they would tackle global warming.

Will they live up to those promises?

Here in Oregon, the make-or break-bill in the Legislature is Senate Bill 80, the Governor’s proposal to place a mandatory cap on global warming pollution that will decline over time, and enter Oregon into a western regional carbon trading system.  While other energy efficiency and renewable energy bills on the table this session should also be passed, those bills need to be paired with real limits on global warming pollution. 

Critics say we should wait. Here are some common myths they put forward as reasons to delay action on global warming. 

Myth:  Federal or international action on climate change is coming.

Truth:  Meaningful federal legislation is a possibility and a necessity, but getting 60 votes to beat a Senate filibuster will be very difficult given strong and well-funded opposition by coal and oil interests.  It’s precisely the leadership of states like Oregon that will help generate federal action.  In fact, time and time again, meaningful federal progress on critical issues has come only after states have taken the lead.

Oregon was one of the founding members of the Western Climate Initiative, a coalition of seven western states and four Canadian provinces committed to implementing a regional cap-and-trade system. Utilities on the East Coast are also moving forward with a similar system.  

Leaders in Congress have promised a national solution will take into account local needs.  But Oregon will have more power to shape federal policy if we have actually begun to design our own system. Unless Oregon Legislators approve a plan this year to ensure our participation in the WCI, Oregon will be left behind California, Washington, and other states in the region.

Internationally, the world is also looking for leadership.  Leaders from across the world will meet in Copenhagen in December to create a global climate strategy. Given the history of U.S. disengagement on the issue, nations will need proof that we are serious about stopping global warming.

Myth: In this time of unprecedented economic upheaval, now is the wrong time to pass this Legislation.

Truth: Actually it’s precisely the right time. Beginning to implement a cap will create jobs.   By staying ahead of the curve, Oregon will be poised to export the expertise and industries that will soon be high in demand as the rest of the world catches up.  The green energy economy is coming and it will power the 21st century.  Oregon families are depending on us to make sound economic investments that will provide stable employment for the long run. A cap-and-trade system is a way to jump-start those investments.

Moreover, the Legislation gives DEQ two years to develop a system, which wouldn’t go into effect until after the 2011 Legislative Session.  Businesses would have time to adjust their plans to focus on renewable energy alternatives.  And if a better federal system has been adopted by 2011, or if the economy has entered a true depression, the Legislature could always reject the plan.

Any real system will take several years to plan and implement, and businesses need certainty to invest in the green energy transition.  If we wait to give DEQ this authority in 2011, it will delay these investments.

And that’s two years the planet doesn’t have. We have already wasted the last eight.

Myth: A carbon tax is a better solution.

Truth: Some economists believe a carbon tax is a more efficient way to reduce carbon emissions.  But aside from the obvious political challenges, a carbon tax lacks the precision of a cap.  Nobody actually knows what level to set a carbon tax to have the desired reduction in emissions.  By contrast, if we set a firm cap and decrease it over time, we can set reductions to match what the scientific consensus tells us is necessary and without the political challenges of constantly adjusting a tax rate.

To be sure, the Europeans botched their cap-and-trade system at the start by giving away pollution permits without requiring polluters to buy their permits and by failing to police the trading system.  Local and national policy makers have learned from those mistakes and are prepared to force polluters to pay their fair share.  An effective and monitored trading system can then efficiently allow polluters to reduce pollution in a way that spurs innovation and meets targets.  Businesses that move quickly to reduce their carbon footprint and fall below their allowable limits can sell their excess credits to those who continue to exceed their caps.

Myth:  Our kids can take care of this problem.

Truth:  Okay, that one wasn’t serious.  But it would be the practical effect of more delay.  Reducing global warming pollution, from any source, is the best way to make sure we protect Oregon families.

And let there be no doubt, this isn’t just an economic and environmental problem, it’s a question about our responsibilities across generations and across nations.  Hundreds of millions of people are at serious risk of having their homes flooded as sea levels rise.  Hundreds of millions more are threatened by fresh water shortages as snowpack throughout the world declines.

What will our children think of us if we dithered and delayed because we’re too wedded to doing business as usual with the least disruption?

Oregon has always been a national leader on environmental issues. At this critical point in our history, that leadership matters more than ever. We must start taking responsibility for this unprecedented environmental crisis now.  Oregon’s families – today’s and the future’s—are depending on us.

If you agree -- and think we need strong, meaningful action on climate, you can email your legislators via the Oregon Conservation Network


Comments

  • Douglas K. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Three ... two ... one ....

    (waiting for the swarm of cut-and-paste deniers to flood the comments)

  • Christine Lewis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you for this post Jonathan! Policy makers have spent too much time looking around for someone else- another level of government, the next generation, the international community- to confront climate change first. Scientists have presented a compelling case to act now, and your myth-busting around cap&trade vs. other carbon-reduction policy make it clear that SB 80 is our best opportunity to provide leadership and set limits on climate change-causing pollution. Let's pass climate legislation now!

  • noel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I've been thinking about global warming a lot lately. "

    You know what I and alot of other Oregonians have been thinking alot about lately? Making the next months house payment and will I have job in the next few months!

    We got more snow this year than I can remember. I hope it does warm up, because my heating bills are killing me.

    "A carbon tax is a better solution."

    Of course, tax tax tax. The Progressive Democrat solution to almost any problem.

    Jonathan Poisner you're a complete f**king idiot. If my income grew as fast as the size of your beloved government, I'd be wealthy by now. But the fact is, any raise I do get is immediately swallowed up by new taxes and fees.

  • (Show?)

    Count me as a reluctant cap-and-trade supporter. I think man-made climate change is real and that we need to act big and now. But I’m reluctant because I think cap-and-trade is second best to a carbon tax (and cap-and-trade delays involving the transportation section) and incomplete without an effort from Oregon to engage directly the countries, like China and India, that will determine the global outcome.

    The place to start is with a substantial, revenue neutral gas tax. This would have a substantial impact on carbon emission, immediately show our seriousness and leadership, reduce our funding of hostile petro-states, reduce the strategic importance of the Middle East (and all the grief that brings us), bring home part of the $700 billion annual we spend abroad on oil and have many of the same effects at the cap-and-trade system. And it can be promoted as patriotic. Why this legislature does not put a substantial, phased-in, revenue neutral ($’s rebated somehow) gas tax out to a vote of the people is beyond me.

    Oregon efforts are not going to make much difference to climate change. As Tom Friedman put it “As China goes, so goes planet earth.” How much climate change we undergo will be determined by the large emerging economies, like China, India, Brazil, etc. Yes, it would be useful for Oregon to do its part and set a leadership example. But, we need to engage these countries in new ways, not just on the issue of climate change, but for our economic and national security future as well. We need to find a way to persuade the Chinese not to build one new traditional coal plant per week. So where’s the strategic plan or effort to engage these other countries. Otherwise, our energy costs go up and they go on emitting carbon. Part, and only part, of such a strategic effort would be to strengthen foreign language programs in our schools, target specific languages, and send many more of our students to study abroad. Let them figure out how to persuade these other countries.

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A CHALLENGE TO THE SUPPORTERS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY

    I don't need to list your names, you know who you are. I challenge you to provide a list of names of scientists who have taken the opposite side of this issue (you know, the deniers as you call them) that you find as acceptable sources for debate here on this topic.

    The reason for this challenge is simple; we can never move forward with any intelligent discussion if every quoted scientist that disagrees with you is dismissed out-of-hand as a "denier." Here is YOUR opportunity to set the table of this discussion.

  • Ersun Warncke (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have yet to have someone explain how giving pollution rights to existing polluters, and then requiring new entrants into the market to pay for their "right to pollute" will result in anything but cementing the position of existing monopoly holders. This will have the opposite of the intended effect. It will be an obstacle to new investment and innovation and will allow existing polluters to maintain their monopolies in the face of more efficient and less-polluting competition.

    While I sympathize with the environmental instinct, you really need to dig a bit deeper and understand the economics of what you are supporting.

    Also, why not just be honest, and propose an end-user tax on electricity and gasoline? If you believe that people need to moderate their energy consumption, why don't you actually convince them of that, and enact the policies to do that directly? Instead of trying to backdoor them with some carbon tax scheme that disguises what the actual effect will be (higher taxes, lower consumption in theory).

    Just a suggestion: but the public might be more amenable to the honest approach if the wealthiest people, who consume the most resources, led by example, and dramatically reduced their consumption, and used some of that money to help keep people in their homes with food on their tables.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The latest scientific research suggests the impacts of global warming are coming faster and more furiously than had been previously projected."

    Huh? What research? I follow this issue extensively and must have somehow missed the "latest scientific research".

    IMO there is little or no new research making any such suggestions at all.

    There is some fresh re-embellishment of old claims to raise the global warming alarm bar in the face of so much expert scrutiny refuting nearly all of the background science AGW depends on.

    In reality there is little if anything holding up to scrutiny. Yet the loyaly of believers is unwavering.

    Yet many of you are easily convinced the impacts of global warming are coming even faster and more furiously. Well that was sure easy. Why is it so easy to convince you?

    Let's see. Projected warming is not happening, ocean temps are cooling, sea ice extent is stablizing, snow packs are remaining, ocean levels are not rising, more hurricanes are not happening, the global nature of the Medieval Warm period and Mini ice age makes the hockey stick theory worthless, station sensors are shown to be giving false readings of warming, authorities are adjusting raw data to show warming, polar bears are thriving and I love to ski at Timberline.

    And yet you Democrats remain on the AGW movement to impose cap and trade/carbon taxes to punish businesses, taxpayers and economies? Without the slightest indication it will effect CO2 emission or climate?

    Just so you can feel good or is there something else I am missing.

    It obviously doesn't matter what opposing scientists, or science is cut and pasted for your consideration. You refuse to consider it. How do you get to such a position?

    In a twist of hypocisy you appear as foolish as those believing there were WMDs in Iraq well after it was known there were none as thought, or lied about by Bush and Cheney.

    But with known cooling from the 40s to the 70s while human CO2 emissions soared how can you now possibly beleive the last 30 years of modest warming is severe and Human CO2 caused?

    At least Democrats are now owning this farce. With every elected Democrat on board with very few disturbed Republicans proper credit for the cap and trade/carbon tax assault on energy and livilhoods of us all will be accurately given.

    Christopher Monckton "The IPCC's methodology relies unduly — indeed, almost exclusively — upon numerical analysis, even where the outputs of the models upon which it so heavily relies are manifestly and significantly at variance with theory or observation or both. Modeled projections such as those upon which the IPCC's entire case rests have long been proven impossible when applied to mathematically-chaotic objects, such as the climate, whose initial state can never be determined to a sufficient precision. For a similar reason, those of the IPCC's conclusions that are founded on probability distributions in the chaotic climate object are unsafe.

    "Not one of the key variables necessary to any reliable evaluation of climate sensitivity can be measured empirically. The IPCC's presentation of its principal conclusions as though they were near-certain is accordingly unjustifiable. We cannot even measure mean global surface temperature anomalies to within a factor of 2; and the IPCC's reliance upon mean global temperatures, even if they could be correctly evaluated, itself introduces substantial errors in its evaluation of climate sensitivity. .The IPCC overstates temperature feedbacks to such an extent that the sum of the high-end values that it has now, for the first time, quantified would cross the instability threshold in the Bode feedback equation and induce a runaway greenhouse effect that has not occurred even in geological times despite CO2 concentrations almost 20 times today's, and temperatures up to 7 ºC higher than today's."

  • (Show?)

    Ersun,

    There's no reason that existing polluters need to be given the credits for free. Indeed, in various cap and trade systems, there's been a shift over time from giving away credits to auctioning them, to create economic incentives.

    And the system you describe is unlikely to happen: despite initial distribution, if new entrants are more efficient, they will buy the permits from existing firms, as they can afford to, and the existing firms can gain from selling them.

    Third, cap-and-trade systems are generally designed to reduce pollution permits over time -- as the point is to reduce carbon emissions.

    Finally, current polluters already have the "rights" to pollute. Current regulation lets them pollute certain amounts, and cap and trade is a way to create an economic incentive to go above and beyond their required reductions. Most companies like economic incentives and will chase them.

    Cap and trade was tried and found to be successful with sulfur dioxide. There's no reason we can't do it again with carbon dioxide.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    CO2 is not pollution.

    This is an amazing thing to watch.

    I think most you have lost your minds. You're advocating tremendous hardship for no gain at all.

  • Robert Collins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rather than cap and trade or carbon taxes how about a massive tree planting effort? I think the logging of the amazon rain forest has way more to do with increased CO2 than coal burning plants and automobiles.

  • (Show?)

    While I shouldn't engage the trolls, let's just say this: the appropriate levels of carbon dioxide are good. Too much means problems.

    Similarly, drinking water is good for you. Being stuck under water kills you.

    Eating food is good. Eating too much is bad.

    More about carbon dioxide levels.

    And why we need to get to about 350 parts per million.

  • Scott J (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think cap & trade is great. Many of the major US corporation stand to make a fortune from this. It is relatively easy to identify the winners.

    I'm simply buying their stocks. As they score big, I score big. I'll then have more than enough money to continue to drive my SUV and enjoy AC in the summer, cranking the heat during the winter.

    To my dismay though, if global warming is going to happen and sea levels rise, why aren't beach front real estate prices falling?

  • The Libertarian Guy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If so many are serious about Global Warming wouldn't it make sense to open the transit market to private businesses to get private cars off the street by offering people an alternative? Some have suggested that doing so would reduce greenhouse emissions from autos by 30% or more. It would also slow the development of the outlying areas, reduce street congetion, help with the threat from peak oil and just maybe help reduce poverty all at little or not costs to the tax payer.

  • billy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What are you guys going to do when the current global cooling continues?

    Are you ready for the major election losses you will suffer as the Rs rightly accuse you of destroying the economy based on crap science promoted by Al Gore, the Democrats and their greedy Wall Street buddies. (Yes, and a few RINOs)

    B

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Evan, Are you kidding me.

    You linked to two of the most elementary places there are. Is that the extent of your intake?

    No wonder you are so duped.
    The 350 parts per million tale is beyond contrived.

    I honestly feel sorry for you folks sometimes. With AGW you've reached a new level of naviety. It's amazing. And yet it is easy to see how lame this IPCC case is by visiting the ongoing scrutiny. www.whatsupwiththat.com and see just how tall of a tale it ALL is. If it weren't so serious it would be the most hillarious episode in human history.

    I also wonder somwetimes if you are clinging to these wild notions because you want to avoid joining trolls in reality.

  • Rachel Carson Ecommando Unit (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dave is right. It's greenwash. These debates keep the discussion to the right. We are aiming short before we start.

    The post mentioned acceleration. That's about methane, not CO2. Would love to indulge you mp, but there are no "deniers" about CH4. As predicted, the effect moves forward ahead of the debate.

    billy, can you not understand that you can be in a cooling trend, and have an abnormal spike in temperature due to manmade effects? No one is writing gospel on interglacial climate. It doesn't matter. The short term, documented effects, are injudicious, given our ignorance that you proclaim.

    That CH4 could steal the show is not theory, even among "deniers". That it is, is becoming painfully obvious.

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq is a traitor and unpatriotic.

    Anyone who doesn't support the notion of man made global warming is a denier in the pocket of big oil.

    What's the difference between these two statements?

  • Dil Mirch (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for the "isn't the emperor dress a bit skimpy today" post! Refreshing.

  • Eschatological Tumescence (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 24, 2009 6:37:10 PM What's the difference between these two statements?

    Anyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq is a traitor and unpatriotic.

    Anyone who doesn't support the notion of man made global warming is a denier in the pocket of big oil.

    One is demonstrably false and the other true? One takes lives and the other saves them?

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    billy,

    And what are you going to do when the current cool spell ends? When are you going to figure out the difference between weather and climate? Despite your "cooling trend" the past decade is still the warmest on record and would be even if you took out the exceptionally hot year of 1998. If you examine graphs of global average temperature you will note that there are periods where temperature trends downward for 5 or 10 years but the overall trend is still up. (And if you're wondering about the long cool period after WWII that was due largely to the pollutants like SO2 and particles we were spewing into the air until pollution controls started taking effect in the 1970's.)

    Dave

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    PS: For those of you interested a nice FAQ from NOAA with some easy to understand answers about global warming can be found here.

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Time is of the essence - in Oregon this spring, in Washington D.C.this fall, and in Copenhagen this December.

    We have almost no chance to avoid 3 to 5 feet of sea level rise this century. The first of 100s of millions of displaced refugees are already on the move. The adults of the world are taking this seriously.

    Maybe the rest of you can understand colors.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

  • (Show?)

    you let me know when the cooling trend starts--cause it sure wasn't the last ten years.

  • dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am more than just a little disappointed in this article.

    Ok. Ill start with that i believe in global warming and i believe that humans have some influence on the recent warming.

    But you are all idiots if you believe a cap and trade program in the state or on a regional or national level will have any discernable influence on climate. This is ridiculous. If oregon reduced its emissions to zero immediately(well beyond the scope of a cap and trade plan) and continued this into the future, our emissions reductions would be completely replaced by foreign growth in 14 days. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/State_initiatives.pdf)

    Just at least approach the issue rationally. It will cause economic turmoil there is no denying that. there are at least three full length economic analyses that show large negative impacts on the business and individuals if cap and trade were to be passed.

    I would be all for it if the plan actually saved us from something but it doesnt. ALL PAIN NO GAIN.

    Read up on the issue a bit more before you get involved in something you know nothing about.

  • Todd (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I can support environmental objectives that are achievable and have benefits that outweigh costs.

    The reality is that Senate bill 80 will impose substantial costs on businesses and Oregonians and it will provide little to no environmental benefit.

    This link provides a primer on the costs/benefits/background of cap-and-trade for Oregon available at:

    http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2009/03/06/cap-and-trade-in-oregon-a-primer-for-legislators-and-citizens/

    It is time we get realistic about environmental goals in our state.

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h1>What follows is a list of scientists who challenge the voracity of your dogma. Please provide documentation for each name proving they "work for big oil" or admit you are wrong on the consensus.</h1>

    The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

    Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

    William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

    Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

    Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

    Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

    Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

    Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

    Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

    Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

    Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

    R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

    Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

    Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

    David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

    Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

    Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

    Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

    Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

    Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

    Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

    David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

    William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

    Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

    R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

    Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

    Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

    Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

    Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

    Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

    William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

    Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

    Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

    Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

    Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

    Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

    Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

    Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

    Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

    Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

    Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

    David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

    Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

    William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

    Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

    Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

    David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

    Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

    Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

    William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

    Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

    Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

    Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

    Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

    John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

    Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

    Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

    John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

    Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

    Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

    Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

    Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

    Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

    Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

    Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

    David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

    James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

    Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

    Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

    R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

    Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

    Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

    Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

    Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

    Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

    R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

    Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

    Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

    Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

    S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

    L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

    Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

    Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

    Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

    Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

    Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

    Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

    Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

    Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

    David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

    Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

    A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

    Source: here

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just so everyone knows we already have a cap on carbon dioxide in the state. The law was the first in the nation and it was in 1997(house bill 3283)!

    Why hasnt anyone heard about this?? Ummmm....maybe because it didnt do anything. It just directed millions of dollars from electric utilities( i.e. ratepayers like you and I) into an organization called the Climate Trust who attempts carbon offset projects but has failed miserably.

    Get real people! Cap and trade will be another tax imposed on Oregonians for no benefit. This time it is an easier sell since the legislators and idiots like this author can believe it will actually save us from some ridiculous impending doom.

    News flash: the earth has warmed approximately 1 degree in the past 100 years. the past few years temps have remained constant or actually declined.

    I cant believe I even wasted time addressing this post and i even like what Blue Oregon has to say usually.

  • Dale (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think cap and trade is great.

    It will stimulate millions of jobs when people are out of work from manufacturing and sales due to high energy costs and pollution controls. All of these people can get into working for the government and we can just tax rich people more. Or they can start their own meth labs at home and strt selling drugs to make ends meet.

    I think wind mills and renewable energy create lots of jobs too and we should promote that. In fact i think we should make these windmills break down every few days so we can hire more people to fix them and then count hose as green jobs.

    I think we should promote solar power. I think it is great. we should just give away the panels to whomever has a rooftop to put it on. We can even do it at the taxpayer expense with heavy subsidies. That would be grand.

    I think we should also reduce our carbon footprints in order to save the planet. this would be the greatest if everyone would agree to this. Yay! In fact, i plan to limit my driving to the point of owning a horse carriage instead, not have children, eat nothing that isnt grown on my apartment balcony, completely be off the grid by using only candles and breath half the time i usually do so I dont release too much carbon dioxide.

    I support cap-and-trade. It is such a great idea. I really want to kill the economy, not help the environment, not slow global warming, and sleep well at night knowing that I can call myself green.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I see you all play it safe and only look at NASA and NOAA where zero scrutiny is included.

    It's like looking at Bush and Chaney sites only to see if there were WMDs.

    Look here and see what happens to temperatures when raw data is adjusted.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/23/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-85-what-katrina-did-for-temperature-measurement/#more-6500

    I'm glad Democrats are eager to champion global warming. Unfortunately the impact of your policies to reduce CO2 will be very destructive with zero benefit. But you are all on board. Every single one of your electeds and every progressive group member in the county. That's quite an impressive consensus ya'll have.

    It's stunning example of mass foolishness.

    There isn't any part of the AGW theory that has stood up to expert scrutiny. Yet it seems you've moved the agenda too far ahead to turn back so you'll enact insane policies to avoid doing so?

    There are many Democrats who are skeptics. By your group totalitarianism they are afraid to reveal their skepticism. Can't you just imagine what the left would do to any Democrat who swayed from the globalw warming plantation?

  • Landover Baptist Church (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Let's see. Projected warming is not happening, ocean temps are cooling, sea ice extent is stablizing, snow packs are remaining, ocean levels are not rising, more hurricanes are not happening, the global nature of the Medieval Warm period and Mini ice age makes the hockey stick theory worthless, station sensors are shown to be giving false readings of warming, authorities are adjusting raw data to show warming, polar bears are thriving and I love to ski at Timberline.

    And yet you Democrats remain on the AGW movement to impose cap and trade/carbon taxes to punish businesses, taxpayers and economies? Without the slightest indication it will effect CO2 emission or climate?"

    Richard, you said EVERYTHING I wanted to say. Have you ever wondered why no one questions this "global warming" fallacy when they do the big "global warming" speeches in New York every winter while they are having RECORD cold temperatures? That didn't happen only once. It happened a COUPLE of times. Sheesh.

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is funny how you democrats think you have all the answers to global warming. Even your current enrgy plan is an adventure in hypocricy.

    You support ethanol and Bio fuel when the carbon footprint is just as large from the production process. You shun nuclear power and battery technology which is the cleanest and most enviromnetally friendly energy of all.

    Wind and Solar are OK, but you cant put it in a gas tank..............

    The new Stanford battery reduces all of you alternative enrgy solutions to BS.

    http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908

    You want crap and trade and more government when private sector inovation will do the job..........

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While my own eclectic reading on the issue definitely confirms the truth of global warming, I think it's ridiculously naive for people to think anything done on a local, state or regional level is going to stop the trend. Even on a national scale, the odds are extremely long.

    Cap 'n trade all you want in Oregon, it's way too little way too late. Just consider that the Indian automobile company Tata has introduced a $2,500 car, the Nano, that will make car ownership possible for billions of people in developing nations. That alone will offset any reductions in carbon emissions here in the U.S. And as has been made clear by several posts on this thread, a lot of people don't take global warming seriously enough to think it requires any kind of sacrifice.

    And in a way, they are right. If you read the IPCC's papers from 2007 and then just recently, you can only come to the conclusion that the world is not going to solve this problem through conservation measures alone.

    We'll need a techno fix. Essentially, some international organization, or a country acting alone, or even maybe a private enterprise, is going to shoot a bunch of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to deflect the sun enough to cool us down. Oh, this solution, by the way, will have tremendous downsides, but it will save hundreds of millions of people who live within 50 miles of a currently rising ocean.

    More about this, from a Nobel Laureate.

    There are many other good reasons to adopt conservation measures for the health of the planet and our civilization, but global warming is not one of them any more.

  • billy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverrat: When are you going to figure out the difference between weather and climate? B: Hey David, when are you going to provide proof of you previous claims: 1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.” 2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming” 3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon " 4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).” 5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt” 6. Global warming increases hurricanes

    Were still waiting David.

    Thanks B

  • CTF (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While I agree that we need to do something to stem the tide of climate change soon, I disagree that a cap and trade scheme is the best way to do it. I'd encourage you to take a look at this paper from Dr. Robert Shapiro: http://www.climatetaskforce.org/images/62008shapiro.pdf on the relative merits of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. I think you'll find as he did: that a straightforward and transparent carbon tax not only avoids the evasion and market manipulation inherent to cap and trade, but reduces emissions effectively, practically guarantees the creation of climate-friendly R&D, AND returns the revenues to already-struggling families (a major selling point in these economic times.)

  • BOHICA (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I learned in kindergarten that we shouldn't shit in our nests. Doesn't make any difference whether you believe in global climate change or not, we have polluted the crap out of the earth.

  • Rachel Carson Ecommando Unit (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Enough is enough. This is the eighth time- google, read, count- that JK has ignored every argument that counters his to bicker with riverrat. Take it offline or have it deleted. I repeat, and I want and answer, fucking troll...

    billy, can you not understand that you can be in a cooling trend, and have an abnormal spike in temperature due to manmade effects? No one is writing gospel on interglacial climate. It doesn't matter. The short term, documented effects, are injudicious, given our ignorance that you proclaim.

    That CH4 could steal the show is not theory, even among "deniers". That it is, is becoming painfully obvious.

    Pedantic bickering about climate v weather and CO2's role in the atmosphere is a deliberate strategy by big energy to drag their feet. JK is not having an honest debate, he is posting spam for them. riverrate can not be so stupid. He must be a ecoterrorist, feigning an argument with JK. No real progressive would continue to go back and forth with his discredited statements. It dignifies it as tenable position. He is just a rude old bastard. Ignore him and he will shut up. It will help him in the long run, as he will cease, one way or the other.

    BOHICA, you expect these people to get "don't shit in your own nest"?!? Look at this blog. They don't exactly get it, do they?

  • Arthur Rimbaud (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh, BOHICA, read Jk, Richard, Terry, and too many others on CO2. It's ambrosia, not shit! They're sprinkling fairy dust in their nest. Surplus humans create a world that make themselves relevant, and if it destroys everyone elses, they don't care. It is their only chance for a meaningful existence. Yes they are stupid deniers. How many that "are down with it", find population control statements extreme? How many consider it "anti-family" to discuss why we subsidize hobby breeding? How many find that statement more irritating than JK's?

    Yeah, we've got lots of opinions in the tent. People that want to shit the nest, because they can't hold it, ones that shit the nest because they find it delightful, those that spit in the nest because shitting it is backward and nasty, those that are removing bits of nest to build their own, those trying to knock it out of the tree because it would be a change and hope for new vistas, and big energy that calculates that you could produce some pretty significant energy by setting fire to it.

    Nests are about creating a life. When you have surplus blanks running around, trying vainly to create meaning, the goal is to destroy your life, not make theirs better. We are doomed because too many that want to save the environment want more to not have to change their assumptions, but we are walking dead because of all those blanks that don't want the environment to make it.

    This is something the average person doesn't understand about terrorism. I've worked with convicted terrorists, in Egypt, India and Jordan, as a therapist. I have never met one Muslim bomber, not one, that I think really gave a damn about Islam. They, to a person, were unwanted children that grew up frustrated, which, coupled with injustice, led to rage. They found support in gangs, many of which are simply mafia "families".

    These people are violent criminals that care nothing for ideology. If tomorrow, world Islam and the West came to a total reconciliation and no Muslim wanted to hurt any Westerner, terrorism would continue unabated. It is gang tough activity, and they will find a reason to do it, period. That's what they do. Their leaders use all that to promote a cause, but the mainline idiots care nothing for the cause. They just want to be a part of an angry group that is going to cash your ticket. As long as you allow population to grow out of control, this will become more and more common. There is good evidence accruing that the only reason that society has oligarchs, war, poverty and strife, is because protosocieties allowed the population to grow past an optimum point.

    The New Guinea headhunters have put it best. Westerners like to think about causes, but the fact of the matter is, if you stop taking heads, nature starts dieing. They really believe that. Only recently I saw a film where a chief was asked if they still took heads. In answer, he motioned around at the jungle. It's impoverished condition answered the question eloquently.

  • Scott J (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Attention detached liberals:

    Please explain why ocean front properties continue to hold value and increase, if it is such a forgone conclusion that oceans will rise?

    Price speak truth. Please don't respond with "well, there is a limited supply of beach front property".

    Well no duh! However, if it is such a sure thing that oceans will rise and destroy these homes, you'd see prices rising a block or two inland at the expense, or at a faster rate, than the soon to be worthless beach front.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey MP, I randomly grabbed a name from your cut-n-paste list and goggled Freeman Dyson, Phd and this is what I found:

    Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written

    “ One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

    Three other entries on your list do not have the degrees you assign to their names.

    Thanks for playing.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott J,

    I looked up average real estate prices for both North and South Carolina and found that beach front / coastal property values have decreased an average of 3%-11% MORE than similiar properties inland over the last 2 years.

    Now, what was your point again?

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nuclear power

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7xer94wTiY&feature=related

    Electric cars

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEQaa_xLl6c

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead (unverified)
    (Show?)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPSoNfmuBXc&feature=related

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why are republicans so far ahead of dems on technology? While you want to tax people for cap and trade republicans want to just eliminate green house gasses all together. Liberal thought when it is misdirected is entropy. get a grip and redefine yourselves! Forget adapting to current dogma! Reach out and embrace the future!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0SB5psrVCM&feature=related

  • Scott J (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott in D,

    I doubt the veracity of your reply.

    I've been studying coastal prices here in Oregon and found nearly the exact opposite.

    My point was...if an asset will become worthless, it should plummet in value.

    The cities I'm referencing in Oregon are Manzanita and Cannon Beach. Which specific cities are you looking at in the Carolinas?

  • TH (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This makes me sad.

    If we cared about ourselves at all, it would not take global warming to instigate action to fight pollution.

    Let's be real. Only one side can be right. I would prefer to error on the side of caution than gamble and be wrong.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    republicans want to just eliminate green house gasses all together

    Which ones? Cheney? Bush? Rumsfeld? Rush? Lars? All attendees of the Dorchester Conference?

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott J,

    You site 2 cities. I gave you 2 states.

    Do your own research.

  • (Show?)

    Scott J, the experts knew that the financial system was on the verge of a collapse because of the shell game it was playing--but stocks kept going up instead of down. Everyone knows that housing goes in cycles, and infinite increases in value would eventually lead to a bubble and significant retrenchment.

    So explain to me--why would housing prices go down on the coast BEFORE coastal flooding began to wash them away?

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm always amazed how stupid the progressive masses are when this subject comes up. The run like sheep bleating for their overlord to tell them what to do. Al Gore says we must do something, everyone run. What a bunch of silly sheep.

    The data is very inconclusive and hard to understand. Lay people probably shouldn't be messing around with this subject since they don't really understand it. And certainly lay people shouldn't be working this issue into such a lather when the data is so suspect.

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Mar 25, 2009 10:47:26 AM

    Hey MP, I randomly grabbed a name from your cut-n-paste list and goggled Freeman Dyson, Phd and this is what I found:

    Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written

    “ One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

    Three other entries on your list do not have the degrees you assign to their names.

    Thanks for playing.

    Nice try ass clown In the future try not to selectively pick the statement that fits your agenda.

    Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written “ One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.[19] ” However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends. “ The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in...[19] ” “ As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions. Science is organised unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange things in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something is predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are science-fiction rather than science.[19]

  • (Show?)

    "The data is very inconclusive and hard to understand. Lay people probably shouldn't be messing around with this subject since they don't really understand it."

    Are you a climatologist? If not, on what basis do you declare the data (which are plural, so it's 'are' not 'is') inconclusive?

    But on point, you're right--let's leave it the experts...who have reached a strong consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

  • polar bear (unverified)
    (Show?)

    GREEN RALLY

    EUGENE, Cozmic Pizza, Saturday, March 28, 5-7

    Green Jobs, Green Energy, A Conversation

    Keynote Presentation by: Bill Bradbury, former Sec. of State Stellar Speakers: Commissioner Pete Sorenson SOLARC Matt Keating

    Free! Come one, come all.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kind to the IPCC, Gore and Hansen, Dyson is not.

    He's the ultimate expert AGW denier.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&em

    Eminent physicist Freeman Dyson, Prince­ton, N.J., his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart.” Dyson says he doesn’t want his legacy to be defined by climate change, but his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science.

    IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.” Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism. Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

    Much more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&em

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Has anyone seen the new James Bond movie? They have the Ford Fiesta hybrid on it. It gets 83 miles to the gallon. It is a combination of a 1.3 liter diesel and electric.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBXcZQ138T8

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead (unverified)
    (Show?)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DzsdSWTMug

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well billy, we could argue all night and you'd never accept my sources and I'd never find yours credible. But I will speak to a couple of your points for the edification of others who may be interested. (And RCEU, that is why I respond, not because I think I can change JK's mind, although maybe I do enjoy yanking his chain a bit. I'm not an ecoterrorist but I would call myself and environmentalist.)

    <h1>2 regarding the amount of warming caused by CO2. If there was no greenhouse effect at all the average surface temperature of the earth would be around -18C (-0.4F) instead of 14C (57F). The major greenhouse gases and their contributions to the greenhouse effect are: water vapor (36-72%), CO2 (9-26%), methane (4-9%) and ozone (3-7%). Clouds, which are a separate thing from water vapor, also contributes to the greenhouse effect in both positive and negative ways, they can reflect incoming radiation during the day and capture and hold IR radiation from the surface at night. So that's 57+ degrees F of total greenhouse effect. 9-26% of that is 5.1-14.8F so we already see a minimum of 5F temperature increase on the surface from CO2 and more likely something like 10F. The reason the numbers are so fuzzy is that the absorption bands of the various greenhouse gases (GHG's) overlap so it's difficult to measure exactly how much each component is absorbing and it varies over time anyway depending on atmospheric conditions.</h1>

    So, if you increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm, where it was in 1830, to 380 ppm today that's a 36% increase in CO2. How could you not expect that to have an effect? If the relationship was linear (which it isn't) that would be 1.8 degrees F of excess warming since 1830. CO2 has not (until lately) been above 300 ppm in over 600,000 years (measured directly from air bubbles found in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores) and probably not for several million years. At the current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 3ppm/year we'll hit 500 ppm in about 40 years.

    <h1>4 The claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activities is supported by a couple of things.</h1>

    First, we know pretty accurately how much CO2 we are emitting. For example a ton of coal is about 70% carbon or about 1400 lbs. If you burn it each carbon atom (atomic weight 12) combines with 2 oxygen atoms (atomic weight 16) to form CO2 (atomic weight 44 or 3.67 time the atomic weight of carbon alone). So burning 1400 lbs of carbon produces 5133 lbs of CO2. Or put another way burning 1 ton of coal produces 2.57 tons of CO2. You can do similar calculations for the other human caused sources of CO2. The amount we use of each of those it well documented so it's not difficult to put a number on total human CO2 emissions per year. But the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is only about 2/3 of total human emissions so 1/3 of them are absorbed into the normal carbon cycle. If humans aren't the primary cause of atmospheric CO2 increases then where is it going?

    Second, the ratio of the isotopes C12 to C13 is different in fossil fuels than it is in the general environment. This is because plants (the source of the carbon in fossil fuels) find it easier to to use C12 and so prefer it over C13. So you would expect burning fossil fuels to raise the ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere and that change has been measured. (And don't confuse this with carbon dating which uses C14. C12 & C13 are both stable.) Also there has been a measurable decrease in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere that correlates well with amount used in forming CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

    Oh, and in a post a couple of months ago you were incredulous when I said that global warming (from increases in GHG's) actually causes the stratosphere to cool a bit. I understand it better now and there are a couple of factors. The increase in GHG's in the lower atmosphere absorbs more radiation so less is getting out to the stratosphere and the ozone layer has thinned (due largely to human releases of CFS's) so the ozone (another GHG) is capturing less of the incoming radiation. The net effect is that the stratosphere cools a bit. If global warming were due to increasing solar radiation you would expect the stratosphere to warm some because there would be more incoming radiation to capture and more outgoing radiation that wasn't being captured in the lower atmosphere. So stratospheric cooling is more evidence for warming caused by increases in GHG's.

    <h1>6 - I don't believe I ever said "global warming increases hurricanes". If I did I'll say now the evidence is not real clear. My general sense from what I've read is that it likely doesn't increase the number of hurricanes but may increase their intensity a bit. Don't ask for proof because their is no definitive answer to that question yet.</h1> <h1>3 (damage the climate) is moot if my other assertions are true. #5 is not a scientific conclusion because science doesn't answer political questions like that. Evidence indicates that humans almost went extinct around 70,000 years ago when the global population was reduced to around 15,000 due to the eruption of the Toba supervolcano. For modern humans I believe the statement is probably correct but others may have a different perspective. Time will tell. Hope it's not to late when we finally start taking effective action.</h1>

    I think all of you global warming deniers expect stronger proof than science is able to produce. Global warming is a complex subject and the simple answers you want are not there. Maybe your minds aren't capable of grokking the fullness of it. You seem to expect all of the effects to happen overnight (and in geological time scales they are, but not on human time scales) but global warming/human caused climate change is a small steady signal on top of the much larger variability of weather and other short term cycles (like El Nino/La Nina) from year to year. Because of thermal inertia caused (primarily) by the oceans temperatures don't go up as fast as they might but even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow it would take 20-30 years, maybe 50, for the increases to slow down and stabilize, and for the oceans to catch up with the forcings.

    It's a creepy analogy but I'll use it anyway. Cancer starts small and you can have it for a long time before you start feeling sick. But in the end the longer it is before you start treating it the more drastic the attempted cure is and sometimes it's too late.

    Dave

  • Scott J (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid,

    Your arguement is seriously flawed.

    You are trying (unsuccessfully) to equate market cycles with distinct differences in pricing of beachfron real estate. This is an apples and oranges arguement.

    If anything, in a way, you solidified my point.

    Did you notice what happened to Citigroups stock when investors feared it would become worthless? It plummeted. Markets react swiftly to perceived threats. Many stocks, such as JP Morgan and State Street, while in the same industry and in the same equity market, held up significantly better as there wasn't a fear that they would be swept away. The stocks fell because of being in portfolios that were liquidated, but these companies didn't trade at liquidation prices, as did Citi.

    Thus, if global warming will raise sea levels and destroy beach front properties, such prices should experience more deliberate selling than the normal market based selling that comes from being in a market with more stingent borrowing standards and less liquidty.

    By the way, all of the "experts" you talked about, who are they? It is easy to throw out such terms without backing it up. You are weak!

  • Bologna on Wonderbread (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oregon is pissing against the warm winds unless China takes the same aggressive action to "combat" global warming. We are a drop in the CO2 bucket compared to China, and they certainly aren't going to risk turning this recession into a depression. I only wish I could say the same for Ted.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    By the way, when the problem of chlorofluorocarbons causing ozone depletion was first recognized in the 1980s, many of the folks currently telling us that global warming is a fraud told us that ozozone depletion was a fraud. It wasn't. The nations of the world took concerted action to deal with the problem and thereby averted catastrophe.

  • Rachel Carson Ecommando Unit (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, I think the evident fact that you would rather argue between yourselves, than debate the facts- can't agree on what facts are- is most illustrative of the problem.

    50 debates, and still we beat the CO2 horse while the CH4 banshee howls...

  • Bologna on Wonderbread (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Greenpeace said we would have to eliminate chlorine production and usage by industry in order to reduce dioxins. Yet we continue to produce chlorine and dioxins have been virtually eliminated from the chloro-alkali process.

    Lots of envirowacko shouting from rooftops has turned out to be much ado about very little.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by Scott J:

    Attention detached liberals:

    Please explain why ocean front properties continue to hold value and increase, if it is such a forgone conclusion that oceans will rise?

    Price speak truth. Please don't respond with "well, there is a limited supply of beach front property".

    Well, my response would be that most people aren't thinking that far ahead and that a lot of people have more money than brains.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    “Al Gore’s just an opportunist. The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers.” -Freeman Dyson

    Thank God there are a few men willing to speak truth to power.

  • fred (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Beginning to implement a cap will create jobs. By staying ahead of the curve, Oregon will be poised to export the expertise and industries that will soon be high in demand as the rest of the world catches up. The green energy economy is coming and it will power the 21st century.

    OF course this is completely wrong. There will be NO NET green jobs, only low payuing replacements for more of Oregon's family wage jobs.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon