Perhaps, these pro-environment Republicans should dump their party and switch to independent status. After all, it looks like the Republican party is ready to dump them.

So the 'purity test' to be called/considered 'pro-environment' now is one MUST be a true believer in the gospel of human-caused CO2-based climate change and not worship or even consider any other form of market-based energy reform than cap-and-trade? No one not meeting these minimum requirements will be admitted into the OCLV kingdom of being considered pro-environment. Is that about it?

Alcatross, have you even tried to understand what Jon wrote? And Bill, yeah, that might make sense in some cases but if the district's heavily Republican, going "I" and moving to the center is likely to be a losing proposition. Then again, there's more to political life than playing it safe by cowering to base. Right?

"Then again, there's more to political life than playing it safe by cowering to base. Right?"

There was a time when legislators said "Darned right that is what I believe and here is what the solution should be...".

Then consultants started saying "be vague if you want to get elected" and after legislators were elected the caucus leaders started telling them what to say publicly, what to think, and if a few members of the caucus were uncomfortable discussing a major issue publicly, what the general public wanted to hear debated didn't matter. After all, they are only voters.

Look at how many legislators elected in 2002 and 2004 are still in office. Could it be that ordinary voters have more power than some powerful people are willing to admit?

Jack Roberts, who recently wrote an excellent opinion piece about climate change in the Oregonian, is a great example. Roberts articulately lays out the case for urgent action to halt global climate change. J: Huh? All Jack did was parrot the deep green religion and completely, ignore the data and ignore the recent admission, by key IPCC people, of lying, cover-up, hiding data, modifying data and destroying data to keep it out of the hands of people who want to see the calculations.

Jack is unfit to hole elected office because of his refusal to look at reality.

Jon Isaacs:

Section 4.28 is the capper. It states:

<i>Changes in the climate are caused by natural cycles that are still being studied....</i>

So, it is also the official position of the Oregon Republican Party that climate change does not exist

Bob T:

Are we reading the same thing? It says climate changes "are caused by natural cycles". And you turn that into meaning it's not changing at all?

Bob Tiernan Portland

Why go with "left out in the cold" in the title of a pro-global warming story?

 It's a minor thing like during the New Orleans game tonight, when the announcer said the Saints had gone through a long dry spell.

  As a comedy writer, I see tiny little problems that hurt the vibe and eventually add up.

  How about, "Pro-Environment Republicans Land on the Endangered Species List"?

Interesting that the Republican party was at one time environmentally conscious, certainly in Oregon in the Tom McCall days. Back then, the "party of the rich" was advocating for more parks, clean air/water, open beaches, bottle bills, etc., while the Dems were worried about lost jobs due to environmental restrictions. Now, the Republicans are the party of rural lower class angry white men, who don't give a shit about anything they are not told to care about by their media heroes. Rather a shame, really.

Here's a magic tag to fix the comment bolding problem.

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 30, 2009 6:40:10 PM

Perhaps, these pro-environment Republicans should dump their party and switch to independent status. After all, it looks like the Republican party is ready to dump them.

And maybe anti-war Democrats should do the same. Or pro-environment Democrats. If one had only this administration's record to go on, one wouldn't know that it was pro-environment.

This is my complaint about political parties and their effect on American politics. They satisfy social needs, and that is the reason that people belong to them, even if that means that they are voting contrary to their beliefs and interests. The whole presumption behind using animal symbols is that consituents aren't that smart (can't read). What's the Greens' symbol? Libertarians'? See a difference?

Posted by: jamieee | Nov 30, 2009 10:47:00 PM

Has Kari removed Kar-lock from the spam filter? Doesn't look like it. Hint, JerKoff...when a blog administrator adds your name to the spam filter, it means leave. If this were his office you would be guilty of second degree trespass. You wouldn't even know this existed, except that he covered your pissing contest with what's his name back in '07. Set up a little blog for you two to spar and...you never bothered showing up. Now you spam his blog. Now, rather than ask to be un-banned, you use jamieee (nice post the other day, BTW on seeing that in a xxx chatroom), Marie, billy, etc. to post the exact same discredited, self-serving non-sense. That is vandalism. And turnabout is fair play, so straighten up and fly right. Besides, how pitiful is it to shout at people in a virtual place when the management has repeatedly asked you to leave?

And quit hiding behind "progressive". You are not a progressive when your whole logic rests on the fact that you won't outlive the consequences of your actions (which we agree on) and don't want anyone that is going to survive you to cramp your style in the meantime. Have none of the editors noticed that there is a very strong correlation between your deciding to ignore Kar-lock and give him a forum and the link spammers and dittoheads? They were unheard of before. It was almost to the day that you "banned" him, yet let him shout over ever subsequent climate thread as "JK, billy, marie, jamieee", that that started. And you started losing good contributors. That was a debate 5 years ago. It isn't now. Move on, get real, or lose those that you still have. No other blog has this problem; just why would anyone continue to put up with it here?

Check out how many comments that crap gets standing on its own.

Why should I be surprised? This is exactly the kind of product the Democrats deliver as well. Hypocritical nonsense. If you put his name in the spam filter, then let him post with aliases, who do you inconvenience? Us, not him. No, but you've "sent a message". Never mind that it has zero effect and is counterproductive and inconveniences those you're trying to help. Just like this administration's environmental decisions to date.

The Republicans may be trying to drive us down the fast lane to hell, but at least they serve their big energy constituents. In that sense, they seem to be way beyond what this blog's editors or Kar-lock will ever understand. I think most have come to the same conclusion. You check in here periodically to see if it's grown up a bit, try to have an intelligent conversation, see nothing is changed, and find something better to do.

Unfortunately, the prior administration was very effective in spreading the polarizing "Jobs vs. Environment" message. Now those who advocate for environmental protection are frequently branded as "anti-growth / anti-jobs". Oregon has done a decent job of getting the message out that there can be employment opportunities flowing from environmental initiatives, but that is not the national perspective, particularly in the Rust Belt and Middle America. Hard cap proposals on carbon dioxide emissions will be a tough sell for Obama and the Dems, and instant political death for Repubs.

Thanks for sharing the "purity test" with us Jon. So bad it's almost funny.

(3) "We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation."

Last I checked, cap-and-trade is market-based energy reform.

That the ORP's platform openly denies the global scientific consensus is equally disconcerting.

The NEW Oregon conservation community wants to help elect Republicans who believe we have a responsibility to protect and preserve the Earth for future generations. And we will dedicate significant resources to help elect pro-environment Republicans when we can find them.

Just wanted to add this important edit. While I want to believe your pledge as the new ED of the OLCV ... I had friends with a "pro-environmental R"(as determined by the OLCV Ratings) that was opposed by the OLCV in the last election because it became a D targeted race.

I hope your pledge is sincere because pro-environmental Republicans are growing cynical of the OLCVs and in many cases won't work with them in the last session. I hope you have an outreach plan to let Rs know that a new OLCV leadership exists.

Pro-environment Republican? Isn't that kinda like a pro-meat vegetarian.

pro-environment? really?

You think people are anti-environment. You think republicans just want to rape and pillage the earth?

Ridiculous.

You are way off base.

Republicans just happen to see solutions in a different way than the socialistic type policies that enviro organizations promote. Republicans also have the ability to weigh priorities and realize that education, the police force and other government essentials need to be taken care of as well.

Perhaps you can get some on the right to agree with you if you work towards real solutions that solve real problems and the benefits outweigh the costs.

also if every enviro organization was inherently leftist, liberal and progressive maybe republicans would take your 'plans' to save the planet seriously.

The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

Now everyone, buy my books, movies cd's, send me your $$$ and vote for my special new taxes. If, and only if, you do this, will planet Earth be saved. Quick, Act now! We don't have long to live!!

Those of you that don't believe me, are all Rapers and Pillagers of the Earth. Pure evil and haters of trees and things that are green. You're ignorant and live in disgusting rural areas where you thrive on pollution and death.

"You think republicans just want to rape and pillage the earth?"

Why yes. Yes I do.

If there is a buck to be made, damn the collective good and fire up those bulldozers.

Observer commented: 'Have you even tried to understand what Jon wrote?'

Absolutely.

Jon Isaacs wrote: '...it will be the official policy of the entire Republican Party to be anti-environment - opposed to reducing carbon emissions that cause global warming.'

Hence my noting 'the 'purity test' to be called/considered 'pro-environment' now is one MUST be a true believer in the gospel of human-caused CO2-based climate change'...

Jon Isaacs wrote: What does this mean for Republicans in Oregon? A review of the Oregon Republican Party’s platform doesn’t give us much hope.

Thinkprogress.org and Keith Olbermann are hardly legitimate 'go to' sources for any sort of objective analysis of any republican party platform document.

Jon Isaacs wrote: So, it is also the official position of the Oregon Republican Party that climate change does not exist and that humans have no responsibility for rising temperatures and sea levels let alone melting glaciers or the demise of many species.

The platform document does NOT say climate change does not exist - it says climate change is due to natural cycles. Likewise it doesn't say humans have NO responsibility - it just says they don't believe man's burning of fossil fuels is the PRIMARY cause of atmospheric C02 increase in turn causing 'global warming'...

The document further says: 'We strongly support actions based on verified and environmental science'... If you haven't left the friendly confines of liberal/progressive or the more popular 'mainstream' news outlets lately, the veracity of the primary basis of much of the 'scientific consensus' for AGW has been recently been called into some question.

Jon Isaacs wrote: 'And we will dedicate significant resources to help elect pro-environment Republicans when we can find them. It appears that for that to happen, we are going to have to count on some courageous individuals, like Jack Roberts, who will be willing to take on the entrenched leadership of their own Party.

Again, only Republicans who believe in man-caused climate change 'global warming' like Jack Roberts are deemed by the OCLV to be 'pro-environment' - everyone else is tarred-and-feathered as being 'anti-environment'...

So which part of what Jon wrote do you contend I don't understand?

Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica

Jack Roberts is a moron (or perhaps simply corrupt). The entire global warming industry has been exposed as a massive fraud. And now BHO has been exposed as just another neo-con warmonger.

How do progressives live with themselves these days?

Jon Isaacs: You are totally caught up in green politics.

If you believe in green technology, fine.

But quit misrepresenting the science of meteorology by making absolutely false and unprovable claims that the science community has proven CO2 caused the past warming trend that ceased in 1998 or is responsible for global warming trends.

There is no such proof. It has never been offered up. What has been offered is 87 billion dollars of "advocacy science" that has documented how some changes took palce from the warming, which from, create a scientifically unprovable link that leaps from that to blaming CO2 for the warming.

The measurements of long wave infrared radiation ( OLR ) off of satellite data clearly show that climate model sensitivity factors to CO2 are dicked up. No surprise.They also infer the past warming was natural. The founding work in atmospheric radiation physics gives no way to conclude doubling CO2 would cause ANY catastrophic warming of the earth. This is falsely emmulated in modeling which has demonstrably wrong water vapor feedbacks that grossly exaggerate warming.

Your claims and that of your colleages are self serving, provenly false assertions to advance your political agendas.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist

Isn't a little embarrassing to make such strong claims that contradict the worlwide consensus of climate scientists? Are all those melting glaciers, ice sheets and tundra not of concern to you? Would you deny that your pants were on fire if Al Gore pointed it out to you through smoke and flames?

Here's an essay from the American Institute of Physics:

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.

Jake: Conspicuously missing from the American Institute of Physic's statement is the fact that physicist William Elsasser from Harvard University was the first guy ( after radiation was properly quntasized in the Planck/Einstein era ) to come along and make a radiation model for meteorologists to use in atmospheric and surface to atmosphere and space computations. His work was clear about the role of CO2 in the earth/atmospheric system. It ( co2) is a radiatively inferior gas of secondary importance to clouds and water vapor. Both in terms of IR quanta and concentration. Only water vapor and clouds modulate the radiative flux from the earth in large enough quantaties to affect the climate in any significant way.

The Institute of Physics has not reinvented the wheel since Elsasser, either. Nothing new has happened except the advent of "cliamte models" whose sensitivity factors to CO2 amoungst other things are totally dicked up.

So no, it is far from an embarrassing statement that I made and I firmly statnd by it. No proof has been offered up that ANY of the past warming was caused by CO2, and if there is a warming signal present in the OLR flux, it has been too small to measure to date.

What should be embarrassing to the Institute of Physics is their selective memory of their own scientific history and their utter silence about the abuse of physics employed and hidden in bogus climate modeling which is a scientific failure.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Peri Brown, has eyes and a brain

Chuck, what is "dicked up" is the state of the worldwide ecosystem. We did it. You know, if you've got a serial murder suspect, you put him in jail while you accumulate evidence. In your world, if the police initially say, "we think the last victim was killed with a knife", and later find out it was a piece of glass, would you turn him loose because their initial guess at the mechanism was wrong?

Yeah, we're grasping at straws. That's what you do when you're drowning. Judeo-Christian tradition has indoctrinated generations into the belief that man is lord of nature and his whims trump all. We've bred and used that tiny little egg membrane thin bit of atmosphere that surrounds the planet like a toilette for hundreds of years. This is the real argument. Your ilk really believe that man is to be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over nature. No, you aren't out to destroy it directly, but you're out to see that the past pattern of behavior doesn't change. If the environment can be preserved doing that, then you're all for it. If it comes to a choice...well, hey, "you're taking bread out of my children's mouths". Should have considered what it would take to feed them first.

This is what the debate is about. People that are prepared to change, and those that wouldn't even if they saw the result and had it to do over again. That is the point of Reps purifying themselves from the progressive environmentalists. Reps are about stasis. Status quo. And always, homo sapiens uber alles! You put man first. Many of us don't. That is what we should be debating! Dithering about CO2 is exactly what the Dems did with slavery. The real question was "are they equal humans". That wasn't pleasant to discuss, so everything peripheral was debated until this country tore itself apart and blood was spilled.

Peri, you're wasting your time. There are posts that say exactly what you did from a year ago (exactly). The only difference is that there are more dittoheads now, and their positions are more entrenched. They don't understand the scientific method. How pointless is arguing science with them? Do you try to turn your grandmother that thinks all rock and roll is the work of the devil onto The Red Hot Chile Peppers? You have to start someplace, and there is nothing to leverage between their ears. For that matter, NEVER argue science with someone that has a vested interest and has set, settled and decided what the conclusion is, and is working backwards for evidence to support it. What you say is good. I just think you're throwing your pearls before swine.

No, we've always had spammers and trolls

Oh, go back and read those older threads. They've become more and more common, as you give them an outlet, and now you have threads like this that are utterly pointless.

Better yet, cite me a link to a blog, any blog, where the volume of trolls is greater than the volume of content, on a regular basis. They're there on all the major blogs discussing this. They don't run the discussion though. Of course, only a few of those are run by professionals. Amazing how people that don't do this for a living are able to manage the content.

If this blog weren't overrun with link spammers and dittoheads, maybe some of those Reps left out in the cold might be posting. Instead, they read this and conclude that it's populated by the same sort that just kicked them in the zatch.

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist:

So you add the American Institute of Physics to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [and how many more scientific organizations?] as forgetful, corrupt, or lacking in scientific understanding.

Do you believe that scientists who contribute to the official position of such organizations do not know the comparative greenhouse effects of H2O, CH4, O3 and CO2 and factor them into their predictive models?

Questioning authority is a fine endeavor, in my opinion, but one should do it in a reasonable manner. I can't see your arguments as persuasive to anyone not looking for a scientific sounding excuse to shore up his political rhetoric.

Posted by: Jake Leander | Dec 2, 2009 4:34:28 PM

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist:

...and back to our regularly scheduled troll shoot...

Oregon Ducks. Just rolls off the back like water.

Peri Brown: I won't engage you in a political discussion which has degenerated itself into ignorance and lunacy over this "climate change" and "global warming" repetative fear mongering.

If you want to discuss the science concerning AGW, just show me where the OLR ( Outgoing Long Wave Radiation ) signal has emerged from the earth's atmosphere as projected by the rising CO2 concentrations used in climate models.

You can't because the signal strength is too weak to measure as basic computations would suggest. The entire CO2 warming hypothesis is grounded in the incorrect assumption that increasing CO2 will cause a water vapor feed back and significantly amplify warming, which has no sound scientific basis for its construction from meteorology. This would indicate that the recent warming was caused by factors that exclude CO2. Sorry you don't seem to want to hear this or grasp it. But If the satellites can't see it, it isn't there or it is too small to be of concern.

Real measurements trump any of these exaggerated and false claims that politicians and special interest groups who stand to benefit from cap and trade keep repeating. And there are many who stand to benefit, including academia, who has not proven the hypothesis, but only documented some of the changes that have occured since the warming began ( and now has ceased ) and try to infer through improper eliminiation of cause that CO2 must be the culprit. That is not scientific proof of the claim or proper execution of the scientific method.

I am getting no consideration by anyone to tell you these facts. I am just a meteorologist and have been for over 30 years who is sick of the outrageous lies and false claims being spread about human influence and CO2 on the climate to advance special interest that stand to benefit from regulating CO2. I don't care to see any of them rewarded for their selfishness, untruthfulness or incompetence.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

More from the American Institute of Physics:

As the 21st century arrived, the growing agreement among the rival teams, and the consistency of their models' results with many different kinds of observations, became overwhelmingly convincing. Scarcely any reputable expert now doubted that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for the unprecedented warming all around the world since the 1980s. A final nail in the skeptics' coffin came in 2005, when a team compared computer calculations with long-term measurements of temperatures in the world's ocean basins (it was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added soon wound up). In each separate ocean basin, they showed a close match between observations of rising temperatures at particular depths, and calculations of where the greenhouse effect should appear. This was telling evidence that the computer models were on the right track. Nothing but greenhouse gases could produce the observed ocean warming — and other changes that were now showing up in many parts of the world, as predicted.

Jack Roberts is a moron (or perhaps simply corrupt).

Do I get to pick?

Do you have any stock in Goldman Sachs, or perhaps receive campaign funding from them? Obviously you are unprincipled so what is the source of your passion to get up in the morning and get to work?

Jake Leander: They obviously don't know how to model the earth atmospheric system properly, and they certainly don't have knowledge of or incorportaed into all of the unknown factors that contribute. The cconstruction of climate modeling is a disaster to date.

Several important theoretical tests have failed, but there are many more problems than this. The entire construction is doomed to fail because of what is needed to parameterize and integrate the types of equations used through large time intervals and maintain computational stability.

Meteorologists know that climate modeling will not have a successful outcome with the limitations that are imposed upon it both physically and mathematically.

So should academic circles be concerned about this? Of course! So why aren't they? I hear deafening silence when the outrageous claims about CO2 and climate are made on sites like this and many others.

The deceit in these circles comes from exactly that. Silence and silence by omission of important facts.

Does this implicate them? I believe it does. If someone or anyone makes claims that are contrary to their own interests I'm sure the silence would break.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Dec 2, 2009 4:49:09 PM

Peri Brown: I won't engage you in a political discussion

But you WILL still hit the "paste" command. I'll take it that silence gives assent. "Won't"? How about "can't".

I've obviously missed a lot. I've been an astronomer with an emphasis in comparative planetology for 30 years and I cannot remember once, when we were working out the role of CO2 on Mars and Venus, getting help from a meteorologist. I was at the 27th International in Moscow, and I don't remember a single meteorologist giving a paper. If you're disgusted at what those poor climate scientists can't understand, I suggest you publish it where the entire astrophysics community, that doesn't see those flaws, can get educated!

At least you prove one thing. We've tried and tried and tried to get folks to understand the difference between climate and weather. They can't get it. So what do we have now? A weather scientist telling us about climate.

Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Dec 2, 2009 4:49:09 PM

Peri Brown: I won't engage you in a political discussion

A new dizzying hight for trolldom on Blue Oregon!!!

It.is.a.political.blog.

Do you not know one used by scientists? Is it they all agree with you, or that they would laugh you out of the room? And that's why you're here.

Jake Leander: I would be astonished if this came from a physicist at that Institute. Can you give me a reference?

So the effect of CO2's increased radiation well was supposedly isolated in the oceans. Hmm...IR radiation can penetrate water to a depth of about 2cm. Short wave radiation from the sun penetrates the ocean at least 15-20 meters. How could you ever differentiate long or short wave influence by this method? This is idiotic and certainly not possible.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Jake Leander wrote: More from the American Institute of Physics:

As the 21st century arrived, the growing agreement among the rival teams, and the consistency of their models' results with many different kinds of observations, became overwhelmingly convincing. Scarcely any reputable expert now doubted that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for the unprecedented warming all around the world since the 1980s. A final nail in the skeptics' coffin came in 2005, when a team compared computer calculations with long-term measurements of temperatures in the world's ocean basins (it was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added soon wound up). In each separate ocean basin, they showed a close match between observations of rising temperatures at particular depths, and calculations of where the greenhouse effect should appear. This was telling evidence that the computer models were on the right track. Nothing but greenhouse gases could produce the observed ocean warming — and other changes that were now showing up in many parts of the world, as predicted.

Bob T:

I'm still waiting for Jon Isaacs to explain why the passage in the Oregon Republican Party Platform that states [my emphasis added]:

"Changes in the climate are caused by natural cycles"

...equates to, in Issac's own words, "it is...the official position of the Oregon Republican Party that climate change does not exist".

If Isaacs can't accurately convey to others what he'd just read in plain English, then maybe he does have a future in politics where spewing disinformation is crucial for so many.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Peri Brown: That's nice. So you're an astronomer. And you're telling me no one ever used applied meteorology on how to construct other planets atmospheres? Really? As an astronomer, meteorology isn't important to understanding climate?

You're full of it beyond comprehension, and you're either not an astronomer or a very ignorant one. Any physicist working on such problems or issues has borrowed heavily from applications of atmospheric science and meteorology. That is precisely what gave birth to the applications of climate modeling. I was a student in atmospheric science when the concept of climate modeling was first introduced in the atmospheric science department. You obviously have missed a lot. Enough to span the course of an entire career. LOL

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Peri Brown writes: I've obviously missed a lot. I've been an astronomer with an emphasis in comparative planetology for 30 years and I cannot remember once, when we were working out the role of CO2 on Mars and Venus, getting help from a meteorologist. I was at the 27th International in Moscow, and I don't remember a single meteorologist giving a paper. If you're disgusted at what those poor climate scientists can't understand, I suggest you publish it where the entire astrophysics community, that doesn't see those flaws, can get educated!

At least you prove one thing. We've tried and tried and tried to get folks to understand the difference between climate and weather. They can't get it. So what do we have now? A weather scientist telling us about climate.

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist wrote:

So should academic circles be concerned about this? Of course! So why aren't they? I hear deafening silence when the outrageous claims about CO2 and climate are made on sites like this and many others.

That may be because the "outrageous" claims about CO2 and climate are are ENDORSED by the relevant academic organizations because of the overwhelming evidence of data published in peer reviewed scientific journals!

Here is Chuck Wiese when he does engage in political discussion:

In my opinion, the CO2 climate change claim is a fraud that is wrapped around a desire to enlarge government, raise taxes and control economic activity and to force creeping socialism on the American public. The biggest benefactors to this are liberal politicians, corrupted academia and public employee unions that are anxious to secure more and more of taxpayers wealth.

Chuck, get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Then I'll take your science seriously.

Any physicist working on such problems or issues has borrowed heavily from applications of atmospheric science and meteorology.

Backwards! Precisely the reverse it the case. Astronomers were measuring CO2, developing hypotheses and testing them on other worlds when you were still saying "Red sky at night, shepherds' delight". Mon dieu, it's only in my lifetime that meteorologists have even seen the earth! Unless you mean looking down at your feet, but, then that is what you're talking about, isn't it?

The name calling betrays the merit of your position. It would be nice, just once on here, to scratch the surface and find something inside.

When millions of Bangladeshis and other lowland folks come knocking on the door of Europe and the US, there will be future "conservatives" ready with an argument that "they" did something wrong to be in that predicament.

See the other thread, where I just said that that is precisely the position we're taking in Afghanistan. If they weren't a "failed state" we wouldn't have to be there. If they get it together, we'll leave. We're one nation, under God. Everyone else is under us.

And we're the only one with real conservatives. Tories aren't denying climate change and the urgency. Don't think even Jean Marie Le Pen is. Vlaams Blok aren't fighting it. Oh right. There's the neonazis. They pretty much agree. Sigh. So few real conservatives left.

Peri Brown: Oregon State University's Atmospheric Science department was amoung the first to ever develop climate models. Of course, they borrow from other disciplines, mostly physics.

You are the one who has it backwards and wrong. Climate models are a direct out growth of atmospheric science and there is no such thing as separation of atmospheric science from climate study. Virtually all modelers are atmospheric scientists, with specialties rotating around the various components that drive the system. Climate is nothing more than the time integrated effects of what drives the earth, ocean and atmospheric system but should include the forcings of external components in the system that operate on much larger time scales. Have any idea of how to integrate that into "climate" without incorporation to the earth atmospheric system itself?

It is all tied together, and without meteorology and atmospheric science, you have no way of solving the climate change system on earth. Astronomy did not invent meteorology!

It's a good thing we don't have atronomers like you trying to solve the puzzle by yourself and without the help of some sharp meteorologists. We would be getting no where fast. Apparently you don't understand that some meteorologists have Ph.D.'s even though their careers are in atmospheric and climate research rather than weather forecasting or operational analysis. LOL.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Peri Brown writes: Chuck Wiese Backwards! Precisely the reverse it the case. Astronomers were measuring CO2, developing hypotheses and testing them on other worlds when you were still saying "Red sky at night, shepherds' delight". Mon dieu, it's only in my lifetime that meteorologists have even seen the earth! Unless you mean looking down at your feet, but, then that is what you're talking about, isn't it?

The name calling betrays the merit of your position. It would be nice, just once on here, to scratch the surface and find something inside

Jake said, "Chuck, get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Then I'll take your science seriously."

What a whopper!

The "peer review" process was stacked and rigged by Jones, Mann and company to grease the skids on their message and obstruct any skeptics work which contradicted them.
Multiple CRU-files e-mail exchanges reveal their discussions on exactly how they did it.

But there's much more to the CRU files. The files with data and programmer notes show the ultra chaos in the garbage they then molded into temperature record and climate models. Validating much of the red flags and fatal flaws raised by skeptics for years.

Yet you blues willingly and purposefully avoid the flaws and the greater fraud.

Have at it. You own this fraud and your denial now in the face of the soaring evidence extending beyond the CRU hack will only increase the consequences for your credibility and agenda.

Really folks everywhere you try and turn on AGW you lose. You lose by fabrication and corruption.
Turning away from the corrupted science and fatally flawed climate models and all you have are the contrived and imaginary links to polar bears, Oregon Ocead Dead Zones and the rest of the list you piled up.

In the past week there's been many stories exposing the fraud.

1."The IPCC science source estimated 2350 as the year for disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!"

2."The Central England Temperature (CET) record, starting in 1659 and maintained by the UK Met Office, is the longest unbroken temperature record in the world.
The 351 year CET record shows climate variation without any trend. However the AGW advocating MET Office temperature record shows a trend where none exists.

3.New Zealand has very good temperature records too. There official version did the same thing. "Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK) and it has been updated with the most recent data." A trend where their records show none.

If I could I would post the comparison graphs for both. They are stark examples of manipulated sceince.

How about Phil Mote claiming our Cascade snow pack and glaciers are vanishing? Do you buy everthing? Mote's snow pack claims are horriblly wrong and his linking of snow pack loss and glacier retreat to AGW cherry picks around the inconsistency of snow pack and glaciers advanced from 1950–1975.

Thread after thread at WUWT blog exposes your AGW movement for what it is.

But there's no surprise you're all still glued to the certainty of AGW.

Chuck, you must mean Walter Elsasser. He's certainly not the last word radiative transfer, he did his work on that in the 1940's & 50's then moved on to other things. The understanding of the science has probably improved since then.

I think you are ignoring the upper atmosphere. The air gets dryer as the elevation increases so water vapor and clouds become less dominant as absorbers of IR radiation increasing the relative importance of CO2 which is fairly well mixed throughout the atmosphere. At the top of the atmosphere where the air is thin enough that IR absorption is not saturated more CO2 results in capturing more IR radiation moving the elevation where it finally leaves the Earth to a higher, colder layer. Being colder it can't radiate heat as efficiently and so must warm up to radiate enough heat energy causing all the layers of the atmosphere down to the surface to warm up in order keep the upward transfer of energy balanced with energy inputs.

And John Isaacs could not be misrepresenting meteorology since he's talking about climatology which is the statistics of meteorology. From a climatological point of view you can't say that the warming trend ceased in 1998. It's not a statistically valid statement because it's too short a time period to smooth out the effects of natural variability. If your trend continues another 10 years then maybe you have something.

No, riverat, I am not ignoring the uppper atmosphere. How does climate modeling deal with stratospheric emission from CO2? It inceases, not decreases with an inceased effective emission height. How is radiative transfer handled in a hydrostatic troposphere rather than homogeneous? In radiative transfer theory, the temperatures must remain constant (LTE). Temperature rise can only occur if convergence occurs between two layers. Where does this happen with CO2?

Isaacs is concluding that CO2 causes global warming at and above current concentrations. There is no measurable proof of this.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Riverat writes: I think you are ignoring the upper atmosphere. The air gets dryer as the elevation increases so water vapor and clouds become less dominant as absorbers of IR radiation increasing the relative importance of CO2 which is fairly well mixed throughout the atmosphere. At the top of the atmosphere where the air is thin enough that IR absorption is not saturated more CO2 results in capturing more IR radiation moving the elevation where it finally leaves the Earth to a higher, colder layer. Being colder it can't radiate heat as efficiently and so must warm up to radiate enough heat energy causing all the layers of the atmosphere down to the surface to warm up in order keep the upward transfer of energy balanced with energy inputs.

And John Isaacs could not be misrepresenting meteorology since he's talking about climatology which is the statistics of meteorology. From a climatological point of view you can't say that the warming trend ceased in 1998. It's not a statistically valid statement because it's too short a time period to smooth out the effects of natural variability. If your trend continues another 10 years then maybe you have something.

Pat Ryan:

Bob,

Your argument, whatever the wording, gives you permission to adovcate doing nothing.

Jon's argument requires action.

That's the difference regardless of how you choose to parse the language.

Bob T:

I'm not sure you're addressing the specific point I made.

Isaacs quoted an ORE Repub Party plank which stated that climate change is taking place, and turns it into a statement saying that they deny it altogether. It's very dishonest.

One may quarrel with what the Repubs consider solutions or non-solutions for climate change (if that can be done), or other environmental issues, but there's no reason to be dishonest about what the plank says.

Pat Ryan:

The polar icecaps are melting and there are shipping companies already planning for savings involving arctic ports and shipping lanes.

Bob T:

Fine, but this has zero to do with Isaac's dishonesty, which is all I was pointing out. I wasn't even trying to defend what the Repubs do -- just trying to get Isaacs to explain why he has a reading comprehension problem.

Pat Ryan:

In order for your side to convince anyone of the your POV

Bob T:

What's my side? And what does my POV (which bares little if any resemblance to the Repub or Democrat views) have to do with the dishinesty of Isaacs?

Pat Ryan:

When millions of Bangladeshis and other lowland folks come knocking on the door of Europe and the US, there will be future "conservatives" ready with an argument that "they" did something wrong to be in that predicament.

Bob T:

I wouldn't know. I wouldn't think that myself. But that has nothing at all to do with the dishonesty of Isaacs. Maybe he should go back to Washington, DC where there are more liars per capita than here.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob, Pat obviously had a brain transplant over the week-end or a troll is using his name. Bottom line, this isn't that Pat Ryan that has been posting on BO for years. He's been picking fights with people he agrees with. That last one can't be serious disagreement. And to pick you over the dittoheads? This just doesn't compute.

Posted by: Richard | Dec 2, 2009 7:43:09 PM

What a whopper!

Oh, it's the one-eyed snake and his Rushie practice line! "What a shit for brains"!

So, liberals, how does it advance the cause to argue with these walking pieces of human excrement? Chuck the fucking Dick head logic! Spend time learning how to make your own candles. Then sweet dreams about the day when these fat shitheads will be rendered for lighting!

Chuck, you wouldn't debate Peri on politics? Fine, I'll give you the short version. Keep it in yer pants, ya fucking ape!

You may see more spam because I'm no longer obsessively deleting spam on an hourly basis - and do it now every few days. Got more important things to do in life (and most of the spam appears on months-old posts.)

Obsessive? It's called running a blog Kari. It's not an option if you value the contributors. Do you?

Calibrate expectations folks. Kari isn't going to spend the time to run this thing the right way anymore.

What a news flash.

BO, A class act with Neolin-speak. As for his or her "dittohead/Rush" gibberish?

That link is as fabricated as most of the global warming observations.

Really, some of you are having problems focusing on the real world.

Pat Ryan: What a creative, convincing and scientific contribution to skeptics that CO2 global warming is real and we need to take action. Thank you. I've never seen such a display of intellect and brilliance! I take it you're one of the climate scientists who makes regular contributions to this site? LOL.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

PS: I'm saving your statement. All skeptics should see your convincing style.

Pat Ryan wrote: Oh, it's the one-eyed snake and his Rushie practice line! "What a shit for brains"!

So, liberals, how does it advance the cause to argue with these walking pieces of human excrement? Chuck the fucking Dick head logic! Spend time learning how to make your own candles. Then sweet dreams about the day when these fat shitheads will be rendered for lighting!

Chuck, you wouldn't debate Peri on politics? Fine, I'll give you the short version. Keep it in yer pants, ya fucking ape!

Correction on who posted the comment above. My understanding is that Pat Ryan did not make the comment, but that the person that called him/herself Neolin did.

None the less, thank you, Neolin.

You've much improved my understanding of what drives the CO2 warming hypothesis.

LOL. Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Neolin:

Bob, Pat obviously had a brain transplant over the week-end or a troll is using his name. Bottom line, this isn't that Pat Ryan that has been posting on BO for years. He's been picking fights with people he agrees with. That last one can't be serious disagreement. And to pick you over the dittoheads? This just doesn't compute.

Bob T:

Well, in the end it never really mattered who Pat Ryan is or isn't. It had nothing at all to do with my main point which is the dishonesty of Isaacs.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Hoi!

[comments about Pat Ryan on this thread should be viewed in context, and not seen as a general indictment!]

No, we've always had spammers and trolls

Oh, go back and read those older threads. They've become more and more common, as you give them an outlet, and now you have threads like this that are utterly pointless.

If you're going to bother to ban Ten Beers and Kar lock and a number of others, would you at least get rid of "film izle"?

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist wrote:

Jake Leander: I would be astonished if this came from a physicist at that Institute. Can you give me a reference?

I provided a link to the AIP essay above. The author is SPENCER R. WEART, originally trained as a physicist, and a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA, and he continues to be affiliated with the Center.

Born in Detroit, Michigan in 1942, he received a B.A. in Physics at Cornell University in 1963 and a Ph.D. in Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1968. He then worked for three years at the California Institute of Technology, supported as a Fellow of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories. At Caltech he taught physics, did research on the sun's atmosphere and on ground-based and space-based telescope instrumentation, and published papers in leading scientific journals.

Since you are a meteorologist, you must be aware that heat can transfer from air to water and that water can hold a substantial amount of heat. Since oceans change temperature more slowly than the atmosphere, the warming oceans provide good evidence of a warming earth, as the American Insitute of Physics piece states.

Climate change deniers have of late been claiming that atmospheric warming has ended [1998 is a year I've often seen suggested as the end of warming]. Now, if this were true it would hardly prove that earth's climate is not warming due to human emissions, but it seems it is not true, at least according to the World Meteorological Organization, which says

The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.

Of course, this will not likely discourage Chuck Wiese, meteorologist, who believes that climatologists and physicists do not understand the greenhouse effect, or discourage others who believe all international scientific organizations are run by a cabal of foreigners who seek the destruction of the US economy and are probably socialists or worse.

Peri hit the nail on the head. Why do they argue with us, if they're work-a-day scientist, in the area, and have a contribution? Or, also as she noted, at least argue it in a blog about climate change, populated by scientists. In this country the surest scent of fraud is when a "trust me, I'm a doctor" type will only perform for the lay public. Lot of dead trees can attest to that.

Meanwhile, they DO succeed by being so reductionistic. Even if you were to grant that CO2, CH4 and other aerosols aren't involved, you still have to contend with the general disintegration of the natural world, which is less addressed as we dither settled atmospheric science. Couldn't believe Kar-lock actually responded, asking for hard data that corals were dieing world wide. Should be clear that until they can't go through their daily routine anymore, that it doesn't exist for them. It's particularly irritating that most of those that just can't seem to get it, will be dead when the chickens come home to roost. Bunch of selfish bastards, if you ask me!

Maybe that's why the male/female ration among deniers is much greater than among scientists in general. Women find it harder to screw over their kids.

would you at least get rid of "film izle"?

Obviously, that's a bridge too far!