I demand my right to make repetitious and boring arguments on THIS blog!

After dealing with Jim on my neighborhood web-group ILoveLents, why am I not surprised to find out he is also a global warming denier?

My Mama taught me if I can't say anything nice I better not say anything at all, but that man pushes my limits on that rule.

Everyone,

FYI, this was just put up on NW Republican. It is a BBC program on global climate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk

Everyone,

Correction, the above video is of british origin and may not be of BBC origin.

what I'd like to see is more video footage of JK. he totes his video camera to public meetings and does a great job embarrassing public officials and has burned out more than a few. I'd love to see the camera capture JK and his great wisdom.

Nice try, but blog won't fly.

[Off-topic stuff about taxes deleted. -editor.]

[Off-topic stuff about taxes deleted. -editor.]

[Off-topic stuff about taxes deleted. -editor.]

[Off-topic stuff about taxes deleted. -editor.]

That's just cold, Kari. Lin Qiao has contributed a lot of fact, even reality checks, on BlueOregon to discussions that had been exchanges of mere opinion up to the point she stepped in. I have a great deal of respect for her and I'm sorry to see this post.

Mr. Karlock,

Can you start posting the entire videos on YouTube that you take at these public forums? Also, have you given thought to hiring some people so you can be in more than one place at a time? I would volunteer for the cause! Everyone needs to see for their own eyes what these tyrranical aristocrats are doing to us.

You're getting a taste of your own medicine! I can't tell you how many times liberal "progressives" have attempted to shut me down. Heck, they even tried to shut me out of their blog. I am outspoken and do I do a damn good job at searching new IP #'s to post from. I am writing to you via the Amtrak right now, which is actually currently on time, believe it or not.

Thanks for the invite. I think I'll check it out. It seems like from what I have read so far, even though that site is also liberal it's a little more welcoming to those who don't march to the unison liberal drumbeat.

Did you figure out how to redirect their comments to the new blog? That would be cool.

As one bored to tears, THANK YOU KARI!

It's not like this isn't an important issue, but to debate if its real just drives me nuts. I'd rather have more discussion about what we can do. I'm working at reducing energy use in my house/business/auto's and I wonder at what creative ideas are out there I might use. But with those two battling anytime the issue comes up, its like having a fire hose discussion when you want a garden hose level of input. Drowning is too little of a word to describe it.

Yeah, I tried to reduce my energy use too by relocating to the Projects. They raised my rent through the roof! Instead of rewarding me for the stupid "live close to your work" they screwed me instead.

Kari,

Could you also do the favor of providing GT, TG and Greg a page of his (their) own? He seems to have alot to say and seems to think that it is important to dominate various blogs with. Perhaps he needs his own platform to get his important messages out? At least then we wouldn't have to sift through it all...and tg, before you go there. It's not about what you say but that you say it so frequently and in so many places. Really, nobody's that important. Even you.

That's hilarious. I think JK posts on everything, everywhere. The worst part is that he constantly refers to his pathetic web site as if his cooked numbers actually make sense. Dude is delusional.

thanks but I just checked myself in for recovery. Britney is here and it's so cool and, like, so caring and all.

Apologies, message received.

Gee, nice blog you made for those guys Kari. Checked it out....those two haven't made so much as a single post as of yet. Will they not seek refuge on an oasis when it presents itself to them?

Kari, I don’t have much time for blogging right now, but this is not about Karlock vs. xxx. It is about Oregon’s future under a given set of assumptions about the world. It is about how much the state should intrude on people’s lives to achieve ABSOLUTELY necessary goals. If those goals are not ABSOLUTELY necessary, it has great importance for our future as reducing CO2 will hurt real people, mostly the low income. Do we really want to do this before we are sure? (And, regardless of what Al says, we are not sure. Few scientists will say “the science is settled” because that ends the inquiry and science is all about inquiry.)

Unlike some, I have no financial stake (beyond joe six pack’s) in this argument. I do not work for the oil companies or anyone with a financial interest in these issues or the toy train/condo tower/city planner cartel, unlike, I suspect, some of my critics. (I will admit to SPENDING money to join the American Dream Coalition & to produce videos of their recent conferences and to putting them on TV.)

Here is yet another indication that we are being manipulated:

New York Times “Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.” JK: Read the whole article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ei=5090&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ex=1331438400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Link will probably expire in a few days. Title is: From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

This will end my participation in this thread.

Thanks JK

Kari Chisholm owns the site, the editorial prerogative is his, I got the message.

One thing is certain.

No matter what becomes available the left will not alter their pandamonium over global warming one bit. After investing so much in their wrongness they become incappable of change. The British video is crystal clear in it's presentation and evidence that the left has bent over backwards to perpetrate this Global Warming charade. The British video and the NYT piece will be followed by many more as the man caused global warming fraud is fully exposed.

However, the left, will simply make up new things to further validate their fanatisism.

wow, it is stunning to witness to the blind Global Warming Denial that still exists. It seems like no matter how much evidence is shown to them they will cling to the thinnest arguments to deny what is obvious to everyone.

998 peer reviewed scientific studies on global warming. Every single one says that the globe is warming and that that warming is in part man caused. Not a single peer-reviewed paper argues against it. Not One. Period. End of argument.

998 peer reviewed scientific studies on global warming. Every single one says that the globe is warming and that that warming is in part man caused. Not a single peer-reviewed paper argues against it. Not One. Period. End of argument.

But all those scientists is part of the liberal media conspiracy, dontcha know?

...and hopefully JK will too. Early signs not good.

Probably a lost cause. Nice try, though.

Complete foolishness.

Go watch the video and note the "peer reviewed" critiqing. And how cooked up it is. Note the IPCC scientists who are speaking. Note the very simple yet detailed debunking of the fraud. The ice cores, atmospheric measurements, the scientists involved. The falacy of the left on Global warming could not be clearer. You have been duped and yet love it. Strange cookies you are.

It is in fact the Global Warming alarmists who are not only the blind and in denial that it is natural but are using extraordibaily dishonest and manipulative means to further their pandamonium. Better to force the fraud forward than face their absolute wrongness.

So where are the peer reviewed articles debunking the "global warming alarmists"? I'm sorry but a video does not cut it. Anyone can offer up a critique (and a skillful film maker can shape the message) but I am interested in the science behind it - ala something that is peer reviewed.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

See the link above where the scientist Carl Wunsch who was profiled in "Swindled" notes that he was misled by the producers and misconstrued in the editing process. He notes that the producers told him later that the film was meant to be a "polemic." It would seem that they succeed at this. Real science? Not so much.

You obvioulsy refuse to watch the video. Perfect. That way you don't have to face being fooled. It's all there. Real measurements, real numbers, real graphs, real temperatures making real sense out of the fraud you fell for. Fell for because of a willingness to go along with a mantra with no questions. Is that progressive?

The manipulation by the alarmists is enormous, yet some petty "misconstruing" is supposed to mean something? How about disecting the video and it's mammouth debunking of your foolish Globla Warming religion.

At least watch the darn thing. Most G W critics have watched Inconvenient Truth and the rest of the parade of misrepresentations.

It is only the alarmists who refuse to check reality.

Nice religion.

We should just call this the party of crybabies because it seems that's all they ever do.... CRY. Why not just call the WAAAHBULANCE?

Richard:

I watched the video. I didn't find it credible; I have no faith in the opinions of most of the people portrayed. I strongly suspect some of them have faith in what they said, (and Jim has faith in what he's saying), but "a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."*

The video is propoganda, pure and simple. It reminds me of the NRA videos about gun crackdowns in the UK and Canada. It's well-produced, urgent in tone, and just very, very difficult to believe if you approach it with any skepticism. You're being taken for a ride.

I also read the letter from one of the scientists quoted in the video. Basically, he says he was lied to about the purpose of the video and quoted out of context to make it seem he was saying something he was not.

There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

So, Richard, given that at least some of the people in the movie don't stand by their own statements, why on Earth would you continue to stand by them? From the outside, it looks kind of crazy.

*Neitszche

And that was an entirely predictable response from you the duped.

Classic really. You didn't respond to a single piece of the debunking substance. Instead you followed the usual alarmist path of dissing the source, picking on the petty and diverting from facing the real facts on global climate measurement and change. Then in classic hypocrite form you attempt to cast the debunking as faith based. You're a piece of work. Typical though. Go watch it again and pick out something of substance and leave try and focus.

Richard:

When the scientist they quote says his statements were edited and taken out of context to imply false things, I don't have to debunk the science. The scientist who made the statements debunked it himself.

But, in case you're interested here is a small sample of the debunking that's already been done (by climate scientists, not me):

CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. True but not relevant, because it isn't supposed to. The programme spent a long time agonising over what they presented as a sharp temperature fall for 4 decades from 1940 to 1980 (incidentally their graph looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected; on a more usual (and sourced!) plot the "4 decades of cooling" is rather less evident). They presented this as a major flaw in the theory, which is deeply deceptive, because as they and their interviewees must know, the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols. See this for a wiki-pic, for example; or (all together now) the IPCC TAR SPM fig 4; or more up-to-date AR4 fig 4. So... they are lying to us by omission.

The troposphere should warm faster than the sfc, say the models and basic theory. As indeed it does - unless you're wedded to the multiply-corrected Spencer+Christy version of the MSU series. Christy (naturally enough) features in this section, though he seems to have forgotten the US CCSP report, and the executive summary which he authored says Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. See-also previous RC posts.

Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more.

All the previous parts of the programme were leading up to "so if it isn't CO2, what is it?" to which their answer is "solar". The section was curiously weak, and largely lead by pictures of people on beaches. It was somewhat surprising that they didn't feature Svensmark at all; other stuff we've commented on before. Note that the graph they used as "proof" of the excellent solar-T connection turns out to have some problems: see figure 1c of Damon and Laut.

Volcanic emissions of CO2 far exceeded those from human activity. This is untrue. Annual emissions from volcanoes are only 1% of the amount emitted to the atmosphere by humans.

A free download on this is at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf

Solar changes are responsible to increases in T Read the Damon and Laut paper. Their most striking claim is that the key part of the graphs of Friis-Christensen and Lassen showing a strong link between solar and climate are the result of "trivial arithmetic errors".

Richard, I'm done debating you on this topic. I don't believe your source. It's unscientific info-tainment and even the people involved with it don't feel like it represents actual science. Plus, I suspect you don't believe it either; you just enjoy playing devil's advocate.

"even the people involved with it don't feel like it represents actual science"

There was not "people", as in plural, and the one didn't say it wasn't science. You made that up.

The facts remain. Your discounting it all because of one scientist with some crtitiquing is typical. That scientist and the others DID NOT support the findings of the IPCC. The video explained and showed the IPCC to be a minipulative and dishonest cabal it is.

Your amatuer hour alarmist's spin is a hoot. Keep chanting.

"Now pinch-hitting for Karlock; Richard..."

Now more duped than ever, BlueOregon.

Good thing there is such a vast record of the Global Warming pandamonium. As it all comes grinding into reality with all of you kicking and screaming there will be plenty to show how naive, intollerant and close minded you have been.
Of course you will not learn any lesson. It will be on to the next fanatasy.

Kari Chisholm I'm still unclear on the what the downside is of reducing our carbon production, our energy consumption, and our impact on the environment.

JK: It’s a matter of where you spend your money and what you get for it. If you could cut carbon emissions at no cost, then do it. But there is always a cost and if that cost is more than one would otherwise spend for energy, then that money might be better spent elsewhere.

Instead of people paying, perhaps, $1000 dollars a year in carbon tax, it might be better to put that $1000 dollars into the schools or police or roads (or transit), or to let the people keep it and put it towards their family’s well being. If CO2 is not a problem, then the answer is obvious. If carbon is FORE SURE a problem then the answer is also obvious. That is why we need to know to a pretty good degree of certainty. (and the only reason I am involved in this debate - if CO2 wasn’t becoming part of public policy, I would not be active on the topic - my main concern is freedom, more broadly defined than most here would define it.)

And make no mistake about it - lowering CO2 will be costly. Most of the proposals that I have heard are from people who do not understand basic science (or economics) and contain naive assumptions and other fundamental flaws. For instance, there is no proven source of H2 other than from H2O (using nuke for no CO2) - just a lot of ideas to follow up on which will take years.

People tend to forget that the sun is only powerful for about 8 hrs per day, clouds cut the output by well over 50%, wind is not constant 24/7 which means that, until we get economical electricity storage, we still need generating capacity for close to the peak load. All wind and solar do is allow us to use less fuel, but we still have to pay for the fossil fuel plants. This will raise the cost of energy for everyone. Solar generating capacity still costs many times that of coal/nuke.

Anytime the cost of living goes up it is the lower and middle class that gets screwed - be carful what path you choose.

(I said an earlier post on this thread would be my last on this thread, so I’ll keep to that spirit by NOT debating CO2 now.)

Thanks JK

<h2>The United States Government has openly admitted that Global Warming is actual and is accepted as a serious problem. Why are you corporate chronies wasting your time promulgating pure fallacy. Not only are you old hat but your futile attempts at modernizing your false relevance are just making yourselves bigger fools. Steve Snyder is so far beyond your level even his consideration of acknowledging you shows how kind a man he is. Money is the cornerstone of all corporations and truth is nonexistant. They are the monstrosities destroying everything that is pure and have no place in conversation about the ecology, humanity or the biology of this planet. Bring on the implosions of the hot air filled supervaluations of publicly traded stocks. Goodbye forever-so good to see you leave. Small privately owned business (our countries largest employer -60%) shall squash the plastic macey's parade balloon with a big bang. Monopolist criminal felons such as yourselves will be the ones we will parole last, if at all.</h2>