Bend Bulletin: Not a lightbulb's worth of brain-power between them
The collective braintrust that is the Bend Bulletin editorial staff has laid out the edict that it's just too damn expensive to enact and implement green energy policy. From today's editorial (which hides behind the supremely assinine firewall that the BB insists on keeping):
On Monday, we printed a mock state flag inspired by the Legislature’s obsession with “green” policies and its relative indifference to those who end up paying for them. Some readers have urged us to put the cartoon — reproduced below — on a T-shirt. It’s an interesting idea, in part because we’d have something to send public officials who wave the flag, so to speak, with particular zeal. You know, like Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley.
Actually, we're all going to be "paying" for these policies, or lack thereof. Either we enact this and other green energy policies to curb global climate change or we pay at the back end--with huge damage to our economy (not to mention our planet and our species) from the results of catastrophic change to the globe.
One would hope that an organization like The Bulletin, which is supposed to value news and information, could be bothered with factual information when putting out its editorial opinion. Or at least to shrug off the corporate/business shill mantra that it normally plays to when discussing such a vital topic. Apparently not.
The shill-ness continues....
Speaking Tuesday at a conference organized by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, Oregon’s junior senator claimed that global warming “should be first on everybody’s list” of priorities. It’s certainly first on his, as indicated by his belief that the vastly expensive cap-and-trade bill limping through Congress doesn’t go far enough.Many members of Merkley’s own party have concerns about this bill, largely because of the damage it will inflict upon the nation’s economy. But not Merkley, who argues that “the economy and the environment … are twins joined at the hip.” “Green” initiatives, you see, create jobs.
(Gasp!) A Democrat actually spoke at a "LIBERAL" conference! Be still my heart....As if we're all supposed to quake in our boots that Merkley galavants with the "liberals"...we dirty hippies. What a bunch of elitist crap.
Would that the Bulletin were so vigilant in tagging "conservative" to their tax day teabag party event coverage, but that's another story.
And there are some Democrats who have "concerns" about cap and trade? So...we should simply abandon aggressive strategies on green energy and global climate change because some drag their feet? The Bulletin may not like this, but this actually makes Jeff Merkley a LEADER. That's one of the reasons Oregonians hired him for this job. It's a damn sight better than we'd ever have managed from Gordon Smith. This is the best that the newspaper of record in Bend can do?
Merkley at least had the honesty to acknowledge that his views are out of step with those of most Americans. He alluded to a January poll released by the Pew Research Center. Only 30 percent of those interviewed called global warming a top priority. Respondents considered 19 issues more worrisome, including lobbyists, moral decline and, at the top of the heap, the economy.
This graph indicates that the Bulletin is in favor of enacting policy based on polling data--which is frankly absurd. Leaders do that thing called "leading". But if that's what the BB wants, polling from April 2009 indicates that a good majority of Americans want their government to regulate greenhouse gases:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). April 23-26, 2009. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.4."Would you approve or disapprove of a proposal that would require companies to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, even if it would mean higher utility bills for consumers to pay for the changes?"
Approve-53 Disapprove-40 Unsure-7
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 21-24, 2009. N=1,072 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"
Should-75 Should Not-21 Unsure-4
Bulletin again:
Yet, says Merkley, global warming ought to top everyone’s list, even in Oregon, which has the second-highest unemployment rate in the country. Apparently, the hordes of Americans who can’t find paying work don’t know what’s good for them. Neither do employed people who worry about their ability to cover mortgage payments and monthly food bills with their shrinking or uncertain paychecks. Shame on them for worrying about their imperiled livelihoods when they ought to be worrying about the supposedly imperiled polar bear.
Are they being obtuse on purpose? They bellyache about the "obsession" of the Oregon Legislature with green energy policy--which completely interconnects with creating jobs in our state by making us a leader in this area--and at the same time complain that we don't have jobs..so we can't make green energy policy a priority.
I guess we could do it their way and just cut down a shit-ton of trees. Cuz that always works so well.
We have no doubt that most people do care about global warming. So why aren’t their priorities aligned with Merkley’s? Partly because, unlike Merkley, most of them don’t have six years of guaranteed employment and the power of incumbency. And partly because they’re smarter than Merkley seems to think they are. Sure, the government can create “green” jobs. But such jobs tend to depend upon enormous subsidies. People know that.
Earth to BB: People are smarter than YOU give them credit for. They want these policies enacted and they're willing to pay for it. They also want the jobs investment. It's time for you to drag yourselves out of the Reagan era and catch up with everybody else. Perhaps if you clawed your way out of the dark ages and conservative rhetorical diarreah, you might find that employment picture brightening. It would certainly give you more cred than whining about the fact that Merkley has a job.
|
June 5, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (128 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jun 5, 2009 2:27:43 PM
Agreed, Carla, (though the Bend Bulletin staff is smarter than you are giving them credit for.)
What is unfortunately overlooked by most analysts (Chuck Sheketoff exempted, as always) is the true cost society and the economy already bear from non-green technology. This includes the ill effects (cancer being one) of pollution in the air, rivers and ground; toxins in our food supply and household items; strip mining damage; and other high-cost ills, like, say, expensive foreign wars and huge transfers of wealth out of the country to hostile regimes. Through in the tax breaks and resource give-aways for domestic energy production and we're talking a major waste of money in the current economic system.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 2:47:55 PM
You cite a poll that asks whether people would be willing to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming even if it leads to higher utility bills.
That survey should read would you be willing to reduce greenhouse gases if doing so did nothing to reduce global temperatures but increased your electricity bills.
I am pretty sure Americans wouldn't sign onto a plan that is all cost and no benefit.
Since we are supposed to reduce greenhouse gases in order to reduce temps, where are the calculations of how reducing US emissions will affect global temperatures(the actual goal is to reduce temps)? It turns out that the inconvenient truth is that cap and trade in the US and reducing emissions in the US will not have any discernable influence on the global thermostat whatsoever and this is using IPCC sensitivities!
An analysis has been done on the "adjusting the global thermostat" effect of the Waxman markey cap and trade bill. Reducing greenhouse gases 83% below 1990 levls will only lead an avoidance of a 0.05C increase in global average surface temperature by 2050…hardly worth the trillions we will spend on it.
But maybe it isn’t about climate or temperatures at all, maybe it is about using the guise of supposedly saving the planet to increase taxation to fund government programs…..hmmmmmm.....
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 2:53:23 PM
If we want to talk about poll results we might want to discuss the recent rasmussen poll.
Americans are no longer even convinced that climate change is man-made, according to a recent Rasmussen Report survey of 1,000 likely voters.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.
Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
It is hard to advocate for overbearing regulations that attempt to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions when global temperatures have been stable or declining. In fact, in at least the last seven years global temperatures have declined despite increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
It is obvious that there are more factors that affect global temperatures than just the small amount of human emitted greenhouse gases. Thus, a policy geared towards reducing human emitted GHGs in the United states to lower global temperatures is a low leverage policy at best.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 5, 2009 2:59:35 PM
I don't believe global warming is the number one issue this country is facing. For me it's health care; however, I'm confident renewable energy will absolutely be one of the sectors that helps to lead this nation out of a recession, based on the continued growth that sector has seen even during our current recession.
Here in Crook County we have a wind power project that will likely start construction next spring. The opportunities to attract future educational opportunities, and attract ancillary businesses like suppliers and/or manufacturers of wind turbine parts is endless. It's a win, win when a community can provide family-wage jobs that are good for the environment.
For those who are working tirelessly to bring these kinds of green companies to Oregon, I only hope the democratic leadership in Salem doesn't diminish the BETC tax credits as is being proposed. This unique program is one of the reasons Oregon is in the spotlight for renewable energy. Other states are quickly catching up and will soon offer similar programs. If Oregon lawmakers think we can compete on a national level to attract green jobs to Oregon by reducing funding to BETC and other incentive programs, they have their heads in the sand.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 5, 2009 2:59:36 PM
I don't believe global warming is the number one issue this country is facing. For me it's health care; however, I'm confident renewable energy will absolutely be one of the sectors that helps to lead this nation out of a recession, based on the continued growth that sector has seen even during our current recession.
Here in Crook County we have a wind power project that will likely start construction next spring. The opportunities to attract future educational opportunities, and attract ancillary businesses like suppliers and/or manufacturers of wind turbine parts is endless. It's a win, win when a community can provide family-wage jobs that are good for the environment.
For those who are working tirelessly to bring these kinds of green companies to Oregon, I only hope the democratic leadership in Salem doesn't diminish the BETC tax credits as is being proposed. This unique program is one of the reasons Oregon is in the spotlight for renewable energy. Other states are quickly catching up and will soon offer similar programs. If Oregon lawmakers think we can compete on a national level to attract green jobs to Oregon by reducing funding to BETC and other incentive programs, they have their heads in the sand.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 5, 2009 3:02:58 PM
"An analysis has been done..." By whom? Care to share with the rest of the class? Or are you keeping it a secret?
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 3:07:04 PM
A description and the findings of the analysis can be found here: http://masterresource.org/?p=2355
The analysis uses MAGICC which stands for Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change. MAGICC is sort of a climate model simulator. It was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (primarily by Dr. Tom Wigley) under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 3:08:54 PM
Luckily, Oregon has a perfect case study to determine whether green jobs will reverse our unemployment trend.
Spain is considered one of the leaders in expanding the renewable industry and promoting a green job agenda. Last month, a Spanish economic study was released that assessed the impact of government spending on job creation-more specifically, green job creation. Using two different economic methods, the authors found that for every green job that the government manages to finance, 2.2 jobs will be destroyed. Thus, pursuing green job creation may very well be counterproductive.
Economic analysis is found here:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Jun 5, 2009 3:28:22 PM
Oh for f--ks sake.
MIT just did the most comprehensive modeling of climate change and found it is likely to be twice as bad as previous projections - 9 degrees average increase by 2100.
Lord Stern previously found it would cost 5-20% of world GDP.
It harms the world's poor the most.
The President of Mexico - an oil exporting nation - declared it his most important threat: "Climate change is the most important challenge that human beings are facing in this century"
Can we just start acting on this?
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 3:41:21 PM
Evan,
Ok even assuming these drastic scare scenarios you cite are correct, there is no indication that reducing GHGs through a cap and trade in the US will do anything measurable to reduce global temps.
If you want to charge ahead towards the cliff like a lemming chanting "we must save the world" even though you have no idea how to do it then fine. Just do not force others into your ridiculous doomsday scenarios and irrational policy objectives.
Posted by: Rmoen | Jun 5, 2009 3:59:14 PM
Contrary to what's stated in the article ALL Democrats should be concerned about cap and trade. The premise of cap and trade--that CO2 drives global warming--is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and agenda. The reports don't pass the smell test -- see www.energyplanusa.com . Plus, there's been a lot of new climate discoveries since the UN's Kyoto Protocol that are largely omitted from the reports.
America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But now after reading the UN reports I suspect the fix was in. The UN reports contain much good science, but in the end, the UN is a political organization where politics trump science. We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and determine whether it's driven by CO2. ...before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 4:25:48 PM
rmoen,
Good thought process and makes complete sense.
Before charging ahead we need to assess whether these policies actually accomplish the objective of reducing global temperatures and the costs of the policies do not outweigh the benefits.
An economic study, “Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies: The Economic and Fiscal Impact Challenges,” was written by two leading economists in the state.The study assessed the measurable and quantifiable costs of implementing a cap-and-trade program, or any other wide-ranging greenhouse gas reduction strategy to meet Oregon's greenhouse gas reduction goals, and found the costs to be tremendous.
The study predicts that Oregon’s economic growth to 2020 would be cut approximately in half. Under greenhouse gas reductions the Oregon economy would grow to only $58.9 billion, compared to the baseline of $107.2 billion.
Greenhouse gas reductions would result in 90,000 fewer Oregon jobs than would have existed in the absence of reductions; and 2020 state and local revenues would be $4.4 billion dollars lower.
Beacon Hill Institute in their report, The Economic Analysis of the Western Climate Initiative’s Regional Cap-and-Trade Program, found that cap-and-trade “would have substantial negative effects” on the economies of its member states. BHI determined that, by 2020, Oregon would find total personal income diminish by $320.6 million to $2,419.17 million per year.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 4:44:17 PM
The global climate change deniers have jumped on...lovely. The Beacon Hill Institute is a notorious global climate change denying organization whose precepts also included "limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets."
In other words, its there to back up the hackery of rightwingers. No thanks.
The science on global climate change and carbon emissions is conclusive. Please go deny climate change elsewhere. Nobody is buying here.
Moving on, then.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 4:58:21 PM
Karla,
Quite a bad job attempting to throw cold water on a debate.
BHI is not a 'denying' organization. It would be ignorant to say anyone denies climate change outright. Also, it is ignorant and arrogant to think that humans are the main climate driver, that we know everything about the complex interactions on earth, and that we know a way to 'fix' climate change....if it even needs 'fixing' in the first place.
I also do not see much wrong with limited government(not taking away freedoms), fiscal responsibility (not wasting money), nor free markets(allowing optimal economic equilibriums) so your argument is off base there.
The science on global climate change is not conclusive. Even the last IPCC report (900 pages) has the word uncertain or uncertainty over 1300 times meaning (for non math wizards) more than once per page!
To say that the science is conclusive is more than a bit off.
Take a look at an equally long report that refutes your uninformed conjectures: http://www.nipccreport.org/
Posted by: evil is evil | Jun 5, 2009 5:00:49 PM
The Bend Bulletin was a right wing pro-growth screw-everyone-but-our-advertisers', antiunion, antifairhousing when I lived there in 1989.
Go broke bastards, go broke. Then try and sell your piece of shit in this market. I hope the banks eat your overpriced mortgages too.
I lived there in 1974 before the shits moved in and ruined it. Coulda been another Taos, but greed and Oregon go together like a horse and carriage.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 5, 2009 5:04:37 PM
This month's issue of Discover Magazine has an article called "The Big heat," an interview with three published climatologists. Most of this edition of Discover is online but this particular interview apparently isn't. So, here's a brief review that includes a quote. Doubters of CO2 as a factor should read that quote.
Here is another quote direct from the magazine sitting next to me, with emphasis added:
Robin Bell: A little background first. I spend a lot of time studying the ice sheets at the bottom of the planet - how they form and how they collapse. The poles are like the planet's air-conditioner. When things are working well, the poles keep the planet nice and cool and we don't think about it. When things stop working, the poles can start to melt and there's a puddle on the floor. Today both poles are getting warmer; in Greenland and Antarctica you can see the surface of the ice dropping, and you can see there's less mass when you measure the ice from space. The process has been ongoing, but it looks like it's happening faster than it was. We know the ice sheets of come and gone in the past. Why is this any different? One of the most compelling reasons is that in the past the ice sheets from the two poles didn't move together - one would lead and the other would follow. This time, both the north and south are spewing ice into the global ocean, accelerating at the same time.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 5:10:44 PM
BHI is not a 'denying' organization. It would be ignorant to say anyone denies climate change outright. Also, it is ignorant and arrogant to think that humans are the main climate driver, that we know everything about the complex interactions on earth, and that we know a way to 'fix' climate change....if it even needs 'fixing' in the first place.
Todd..I'm not "ignorant". I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, either. The scientific evidence on man-made contributions to global climate change and our significant impact are well documented and reviewed. That scientific debate is over.
The website you asked me to view: nipcreport.com has been viewed and debunked before. The authors: Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso are both funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Merkley is right, global climate change should be the highest priority. It's right for our economy, our health and our planet. His leadership on this issue is superb and Oregon is lucky to have him.
And Todd, Throw around whatever you want...but seriously, it's over. I'm not going to waste more of this blog's reader time on debunking the garbage after this.
You either believe that we're stupid here, or you're choosing not to look at the objective science.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 5:13:07 PM
Kevin,
You say , "Doubters of CO2 as a factor should read that quote."
This quote shows nothing about the relationship between human activity and climate change.
Evidence of ice melting, polar bears crying, storms increasing in frequency/intensity is not a sign that human emitted carbon dioxide is causing it.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 5, 2009 5:30:34 PM
Todd,
I am embarassed for you.
It's hard to imagine a clearer example of the old adage that it's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or fingers in this case) and prove it.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 6:01:56 PM
Carla,
Interesting that you discounted the report saying that it has debunked. I didnt know that 880 some pages could be debunked so quickly when it was released this month...hmmmm....maybe you didn't do anything but claim that it was wrong because of some apparent money influence that you think skews it. A common tactic when one knows they are outgunned.
You have to realize the numerous influences that motivate alarmists and companies/industries that make money off of alarmism.
I went to a carbon trading conference in D.C. a few months back. At a conference lunch, I talked with a few people at my table. They admitted to me(voluntarily) that they didnt care about the climate or whether humans cause or dont cause anything...they were looking to make money in carbon trading.
Billions, not millions, of dollars spent by renewable industries, carbon offset companies, and hedge fund investors looking to cash in on this ridiculousness and you are providing free advertising for them. Before you claim money influencing the direction of science, you should look at the influences affecting the alarmist doomsday movement that vastly outweigh any money influences on the other side. IPCC is not OBJECTIVE.
Besides, science or not, the reality of the issue is that reducing emissions in Oregon or the US will not have any discernable influence on global emission levels. China adds the entire US coal capacity to its energy generation every 3 years. They open up 2 new coal power plants a week.
India has a population over three times the US. An indian delegate at the last climate conference in Europe admitted that it is "morally wrong for them to reduce when 40% of inidans do not have access to electricity."
Our emissions reductions here in Oregon (if we wiped oregon off the map, zero emissions immediately and into the future) would be replaced by foreign growth in 16 days. Our emission reductions in the US (if we wiped the US off the map, zero emissions immediately and into the future) would be replaced by foreign growth in less than 6 years.
Any policy to merely reduce emissions not event to stop them completely would be replaced in a fraction of that time.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 6:10:39 PM
Kevin,
I am embarassed for you.
You have made a poor argument. You attempted to relate melting sea ice to human emitted greenhouse gases with a quote that doesn't say anything about the relationship between human activity and global temperatures. Then you have the audacity to reply and say you are embarassed for me.
How long do global temperatures have to decline while co2 concentrations increase to understand there is not a clear and easy relationship as you assume?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
I suppose it is not about that for you. It is about lying to yourself to sleep well at night. Lying to yourself that driving a hybrid, eating organic, and telling other people to be ashamed when they use energy actually accomplishes something.
If that makes you feel better, I can cede the argument and know that what you do is more about emotions and feelings than reality.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 5, 2009 6:18:10 PM
LOL - you're making it worse, Todd. Re-read my original comment and you'll realize your fundamental error.
Hint: the quote about ice had nothing whatever to do with the quote about CO2.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 6:22:58 PM
Interesting that you discounted the report saying that it has debunked. I didnt know that 880 some pages could be debunked so quickly when it was released this month...hmmmm....maybe you didn't do anything but claim that it was wrong because of some apparent money influence that you think skews it. A common tactic when one knows they are outgunned.
Todd: Citing the resources used to pay for a "study" or "scientists" is in fact common because it's appropriate. It lends needed perspective to those who seek unbiased, objective information in order to form their opinions.
Sourcewatch has already worked on "International Conference on Climate Change", here and it's sponsor, the Heartland Institute here.
These are not academics interested in science for the sake of science and furthering knowledge. They're very clearly working from an agenda driven by their funding and their economic ideology.
Finally, we have leaders in DC and in Oregon that are ready and willing to tackle this issue appropriately. I appreciate that your comments give me another opportunity to write that. Thanks.
Posted by: Richard | Jun 5, 2009 6:36:14 PM
Carla, Evan and Kari,
Your declarations that the science is conclusive demonstrates that you haven't looked at the objective science. And you never will.
Instead you'll pretend that it's all fossil fuel industry funded and unworthy of review. Essentially all of skeptic scientists have nothing to do with fossil fuel interest. Their abundant and growing science and expertise, is not funded by the fossil fuel industries and represents a very persuasive refutation of AGW assumptions, conclusions and projections.
Yet you want your readers to falsely believe otherwise.
You also offer you opinions with the inference that you have already studied the opposing science when you obviously haven't.
What you have done is follow the ushers of global warming and avoided the very clear and plentiful debunking of IPCC science.
As for the latest MIT predictions.
Here's a good rundown of that special brand of silly fabrication.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/
There's not a shred of benefit to come from the battle to reduce CO2 emissions. The cost will be enormous and effect the poor the most. It will be a huge net loss.
The cost of not trying to reduce CO2 emissions is nothing.
Contrary to your misguided faith in the concocted AGW there is no impending "pay at the back end--with huge damage to our economy (not to mention our planet and our species) from the results of catastrophic change to the globe"
There is only paying.
Not adopting cap and trade/carbon tax policies etc. will save damage to our economy and allow those massive resources to be better spent on real help for our planet and species.
You are stunningly naive and wrong.
There are many, but here is a prime example of the misrepresentation behind what you call conclusive?
OSU Professor (now head of NOAA) Jane Lubchenco fabricated the link between global warming and ocean dead zones.
She ignored her own OSU researchers who "cautioned that at this point it is unclear what — if any — link the dead zone has to climate change " and allowed her baseless speculation to be distributed as an established link.
Now she wants to spend untold millions establishing a National Climate Service. Again she is fabricating and distorting as she claims climate models are robust enough to predict wind patterns 100 years out. She says that can help municipalities decide where to put wind farms?
Think about that. This new tax funded bureaucracy is going to tell policy makers where wind will be and they'll put wind farms there based on their predictions? This is beyond stupid.
Again it represents the spending of countless billions on completely worthless nonsense.
This is what you are advocating.
Posted by: todd | Jun 5, 2009 6:41:38 PM
You obviously did not red my last comment.
It is amazing how alarmists assume that there is no influences guiding or pushing research towards doomsday predictions.
I have obviously already wasted too much time arguing with someone that will never get the point.
Whether you think humans cause GW or not doesn't really matter anyhow. It is about whether you are unrealistic/irrational and believe that the entire world will sign onto drastic emission reductions and actually achieve those reductions.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 7:14:19 PM
Whether you think humans cause GW or not doesn't really matter anyhow. It is about whether you are unrealistic/irrational and believe that the entire world will sign onto drastic emission reductions and actually achieve those reductions.
Having leaders like Merkley out there-talking about the good science and economics, is one way we can get there with the rest of the world.
Perhaps one of these days the Bend Bulletin might recognize real leaders like Merkley. But they'll have to dump the shill first.
Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Jun 5, 2009 7:24:35 PM
Carla, Evan and Keri: The "science" surrounding climate is not settled. That is an arrogant, condiscending statement made by politicians like Algore and those who want to use AGW to tax and regulate us into oblivion.
As a meteorologist who studied IR radiation from "greenhouse gases" I defy you to demonstrate to me that CO2 is driving climate or is responsible for ANY of the past or present weather patterns or global temperatures. The founding physics NEVER supported this contention. It was supplanted with worthless "climate models" that any theoretician ( honest ones ) would have to admit CANNOT make any reliable statement about the earths future climate. This is scientific misconduct and fraud. If you want more convincing discussion from theoretical physicists, ask Richard Lindzen about this. He is from MIT and THEE most respected and "published" scientist in meteorology ever. Someone who taught atmospheric science honestly when money and funding were not the objects in climate science like they are now. I am absolutely sickened by all the BS about this and outright lying to shove "green politics" and its pop culture fad on our society.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 7:25:41 PM
It's already been done, Chuck. The conversation on this is indeed over.
Science wins! Yay!
Posted by: jamie | Jun 5, 2009 7:42:42 PM
Evan Manvel: Oh for f--ks sake.
MIT just did the most comprehensive modeling of climate change and found it is likely to be twice as bad as previous projections - 9 degrees average increase by 2100.
B: So what? They are just groveling for funding.
Evan Manvel: Lord Stern previously found it would cost 5-20% of world GDP.
B: Does the FACT that Stern runs a carbon credit rating agency that WILL profit from climate action bother you?
Evan Manvel: It harms the world's poor the most.
B: You mean the ones that live in poverty and would have their life spans increased dramatically by electricity which you want to deny them?
Or do you mean that a longer growing season will harm them?
Or do you mean that less freezing weather will harm them?
Evan Manvel: Can we just start acting on this?
B: Why not start now? Do your part. Quit heating your home. No more electricity, no computer, cell phone. Quit traveling, except barefoot. Eat only what you can gather in the neighborhood park - heated only by gathered wood. Live in a cave.
Rmoen :We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and determine whether it's driven by CO2. ...before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.
B: Yeah, like the Oregon Global Warming Commisssion, headed by a guy that has a company that sells carbon offsets.
Carla Axtman: The science on global climate change and carbon emissions is conclusive.
B: Is it?
Then why do thousands of PhDs disagree?
Then why are the peer reviewed journals publishing contrary papers?
See Debunking Climate dot com
Why are you still using CO2 producing power, food and transport, instead of moving to a cave and living barefoot?
Keven: . . .Discover Magazine has an article.
B: My favorite Discover quote is where famous climate alarmist Stephen Schneider, said it is OK to lie to the public about climate to scare people into action.
Carla Axtman : The scientific evidence on man-made contributions to global climate change and our significant impact are well documented and reviewed. That scientific debate is over.
B: Better tell that to the peer reviewed journals, because they are still publishing contrary papers. You might also want to tell it to the many thousand PhDs who disagree with you.
Carla Axtman : Sourcewatch has already worked on "International Conference on Climate Change", here and it's sponsor, the Heartland Institute here.
B: Carla, that is just the usual ad hominem.
I’ll bet you don’t even know what gas is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect
I’ll bet you don’t even know what percentage of annual CO2 emission is due to man.
I’ll bet you don’t even know which came first in those ice core charts that Al Gore showed - temperature rise or CO2 rise.
BTW, you told a guy (Chuck Weise) with a degree in atmospheric science, whose daily survival depends on accurate weather knowledge, that you know more than he does.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 7:46:21 PM
Jamie:
The argument is over. You lost. Science has won. There's really nothing more to discuss.
You can keep typing stuff in comments here if you want, but that doesn't change it.
We now have leaders that are moving forward on this based on this good science. And it's about damn time.
Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Jun 5, 2009 7:48:18 PM
Carla: No, science does not win! Deception, lying, scientific misconduct and incompetence win temporarily.
The discussiion is not over, contrary to what you think. There are many in the Oregon Legislature who are plenty interested in what others and myself have to say, infact, once one listens to the correct science and empericle evidence, we are exrtremely convincing and have changed the minds of many.We have been asked to give presentations to many groups and the list keeps growing.
You are operating on a falsely constructed theory and are already beginning to look silly because the climate did not cooperate with modeling. Back peddling is the name of the game you have to engage in to explain yourself today. The 90's are over!
Chuck Wiese
Posted by: jamie | Jun 5, 2009 7:48:49 PM
Your arrogance is showing.
Right beside your lack of scientific knowledge.
Posted by: jamie | Jun 5, 2009 7:51:50 PM
Les be precise:
Carla, Your arrogance is showing.
Right beside your lack of scientific knowledge.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 7:59:42 PM
Jamie:
Let me be precise..and clear. I don't care if you think I'm arrogant. I don't care if you think I'm ignorant. I don't care if you think I lack knowledge. It's meaningless.
The evidence against what you and Mr. Wiese are saying is overwhelming and conclusive. The rest of us are moving forward.
I'm sure that there will be people like yourself and even some legislators who will continue to deny. But frankly, they'll be left behind because the science and the requisite policy are moving forward. Given who Mr. Weise chooses to associate (KXL, Lars Larson, Oregon Republicans), it's clear that's begun already.
Posted by: jamie | Jun 5, 2009 8:04:29 PM
Hey Carla, here are a few people who haven’t gotten your message that the debate is over:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Jun 5, 2009 8:23:34 PM
Carla: So....You and your "believers" are moving on. To what? Where is this "overwhelming evidence" to which you refer? Temperature and CO2 are no longer tracking, infact the correlations are now negative, which ABSOLUTELY disproves causation.
I'm still waiting for people like you to explain how CO2 could cause the earth to warm when it takes up IR radiation at the far end of the IR spectrum near 15 microns, and is totally dominated by water vapor and cloud, the only GHG and liqiud that establishes a convective temperature for the atmosphere.
Statements like this are typical from believers in AGW.The
theory and modeling have completely collapsed so its time now to end the discussion and do what we always wanted to do which is tax and regulate carbon ( before its too late ! )
BTW, interesting that you try and pin my opinions to a brand of politics. This is completely hypocritical. AGW research funding is primarily all from government and to the tune of 4 billion dollars a year. That keeps alot of green scientists employed that don't deserve to be from their misconduct. I don't get a penny for what I do. My time comes from a sense of moral outrage against this nonsense.My politics have absolutely nothing to do with my opinion on this matter. The public does not deserve to be lied to or bilked any longer by this scam.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 8:43:35 PM
Okay Jamie...if you really need to do this, fine. But if you're going to cut and paste from Republican Senate Minority Reports, the least you can do is be up front about it.
Ivar Giaever's work is in physics. He's not published any work on climate science. At all. His climate science resume is limited to serving on a climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine.
Joanne Simpson is not trained in climate science. Her career has been spent studying meterology with a particular focus on tropical regions. However, she seems to think the conversation is in fact over. She says "we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."
Dr. Kiminori Itoh recieved his PhD in industrial chemistry from University of Tokyo in 1978. He is a faculty member of the Engineering Department at the Yokohama National University.According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals.
Arun D. Ahluwalia is a geologist, not a climate scientist. However, the Geological Society of America disagrees with Dr Ahluwalia. Apparently someone consulted them and decided to leave the Dr. out of the loop. Oh well.
I can keep going, but you get the idea.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jun 5, 2009 8:45:39 PM
The debate is over, Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and all of the governments support this statement.
Sure am glad we ended that debate. How much money has been wasted on that one?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 8:50:39 PM
Cuz thousands of scientists with an expertise in global climate science vs the stuff from the Bush Administration is exactly analogous, eh mp?
Posted by: jamie | Jun 5, 2009 8:59:55 PM
And I don't get paid either.
I created, manage and host Debunking Climate (com) entirely at my own expense.
BTW, Carla, you should at least look at some of the links to the newspaper articles about who is getting rich from the scare.
And the actual admissions of people saying it is OK to lie.
The actual CO2 cycle from NASA.
The scientists threatened or fired for dissenting.
The conflict of interest
Partial list of peer reviewed papers pointing to the sun as climate driver.
Partial list of peer reviewed papers debunking Al Gore’s temperature chart.
Partial list of peer reviewed papers debunking sea level rise
Partial list of peer reviewed papers on arctic/antarctic temperatures being normal.
Link to the peer reviewed paper that found forests below the ice in Greenland.
Link to the 9 errors found by a British court in Al’s flick.
Link to Obama saying he will make electricity rates skyrocket.
Do you somehow think that all those journals are merely publishing oil company propaganda?
Carla, you can no longer claim the science is settled in view of Nature and Science publishing the articles linked above.
And you must admit that you are following admitted liars.
And you must admit that Al Gore’s flick has major lies in it.
And you must admit that important PROPONENTS of warming are setting themselves up to get rich off of the scare.
So, why do you believe, proven wrong things, from admitted liars who stand to make a lot of money?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 5, 2009 9:02:46 PM
Mr Wiese: Maybe you should ask the real climate scientists.
Posted by: rural resident | Jun 5, 2009 9:38:37 PM
They want these policies enacted and they're willing to pay for it.
In the abstract, people are likely to agree with statements like this--if for no other reason then to please a pollster signaling that he/she favors the concept. The rub comes when people have to plunk down real dollars, trading away their ability to purchase other goods in favor of "greenhouse gas reductions." Even then, the margin in favor wasn't that large.
A few years ago, when electric bills rose substantially during the Enron/energy trading debacle, people quickly became less predisposed toward environmentalism and more supportive of nuclear power and other (supposedly) less environmentally-friendly technologies that would reduce electric costs.
I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that they want these policies enacted as long as OTHER people are paying for it.
Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Jun 5, 2009 9:41:36 PM
How rich! You haven't answered or responded to any of my comments. And who might these "real climate" scientists be you would refer me to? The Real Climate group? Home of Michael Mann and James Hansen, who have been caught manipulating climatic data to try and "prove" AGW is real?
And Jamie, speaking of all the scientists you claim are not "trained" in climate or meteorology, how about James Hansen? A degree in astronomy substitutes for meteorology? It doesn't make much difference any how, what matters is that what is stated about AGW be scientifically valid and disprove the founding physics of IR absorption by GHG's. This was never done by people like Mann, Hansen, et al.Instead, climate modeling supplanted the correct physics.
Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Jun 5, 2009 9:49:25 PM
Jamie: that comment was for Carla, not you. A typo. Sorry. We are on the same page.
Posted by: RyanLeo | Jun 5, 2009 9:59:15 PM
Where to interpret this jumbo of comments in reactions to a criticism from Carla Axtman on the Bend Bulletin's editorial board.
Time for me to interpret this thread in hopes to clarify it. Over-generalizations will ensue.
The global climate change skeptics are bringing forth their evidence that many "thousands" of PhDs are now doubting the whole global warming movement in peer reviewed journals.
The global climate true believers are pointing to MIT, the UN report on climate change with thousands of PhDs signing off on it, and other "thousands" of PhDs who believe that the world as we know it is coming to an end for us.
Both sides are arguing science while the progenitor of this current debate here on BlueOregon is using such language as "the debate is over", "science has won", "we have good leaders acting..." Carla, I apologize in the blog biting of your argument, but I need to do it for brevity's sake.
In essence, Carla is making another implicit argument:
Those who deny global warming (Mostly Republican and conservative ideologues) have lost the political battle. You can argue science and bring up all the articles you want, but that is irrelevant because your side is in no position to affect political action on global climate change policy.
You may deny that global climate change is man-made or be so brave as to deny global climate change's very existence, but who are you as one single, ineffectual commentator on a blog to do anything to influence the public policy surrounding it?
Deny it all you want, while iconic American brands such as Hummer are sold to the Chinese, Chrysler is sold to the Italians, and on, but your side (Republicans and conservatives) is in no power to do a damn thing to influence political action on it.
In yo face! In yo face!
This is what Carla is implicitly arguing. Forgive me for the exaggerations.
This is how I read Carla and more or less the whole debate.
It all comes down to raw politics. Science and PhDs are just tools to be wielded, while our political leaders are the knights on the battlefield.
Posted by: jamie | Jun 5, 2009 10:11:50 PM
Chuck Wiese: how about James Hansen? A degree in astronomy substitutes for meteorology?
B: That doesn’t matter - he says the right things.
Chuck Wiese: It doesn't make much difference any how, what matters is that what is stated about AGW be scientifically valid
B: The average believer didn’t pay attention in science or logic classes. It is truly pathetic to see people that don’t know the first thing about physics and have no knowledge of the most basic facts of climate be so convinced of their positions.
I am still waiting to see if Carla even knows what gas causes most of the greenhouse effect. Or what percentage of the total annual CO2 emission is from man.
One guy I was arguing with explained how heat evaporates H2O and causes more clouds which turn into rain WITHOUT having a clue that he was describing one of the earth’s natural temperature regulators. Sad.
Even stranger, is that Al Gore says he is lying and they still believe. Hansen says he used to lie and they still believe. Schneider said it is OK to lie and they still believe. Then it comes out that Gore is getting rich. It doesn’t matter. We learn that Hansen got $300,000 - it doesn’t matter.
But if a skeptic got a $10 rebate from Exxon, he is called a lying scum sell out.
Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Jun 5, 2009 10:13:31 PM
Ryan: What you say right now is true. With Obama in power and liberal democrats to compliment him, we cannot stop what may happen. But I will not stand by without continuing to point out the deception, lying and special interests driving this. This business to promote the rot of AGW was well funded, primarily by government which is what makes it the outrage it is. This money is being used by government to expand and increase the scope of their power with a lie which is totaly inapropriate and amounts to taxing and regulating without representation. The public will get nothing in return for the claims we are causing climate change and the absurd suggestions that reducing carbon emissions will change anything.
Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Jun 5, 2009 10:17:12 PM
Jamie: Spot on! Couldn't have said it better!
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jun 5, 2009 2:27:43 PM
Agreed, Carla, (though the Bend Bulletin staff is smarter than you are giving them credit for.)
What is unfortunately overlooked by most analysts (Chuck Sheketoff exempted, as always) is the true cost society and the economy already bear from non-green technology. This includes the ill effects (cancer being one) of pollution in the air, rivers and ground; toxins in our food supply and household items; strip mining damage; and other high-cost ills, like, say, expensive foreign wars and huge transfers of wealth out of the country to hostile regimes. Through in the tax breaks and resource give-aways for domestic energy production and we're talking a major waste of money in the current economic system.