Capitol will be a lively place on Monday. The Russ Walker crowd will be there but also Sand for Children--from their email:

"please contact me if you would like to attend Lobby Day, Monday February 15th,for a chance to be part of a team that talks to you legislators about kicker reform and school reform!"

Bet that'll be any intesting mix.

LT

Why do children need sand? Can't they go to the beach? Of all the things they need, should sand be a top priority? :-)

Carla: Matt Wingard is an informed politician concerning "global warming", "climate change" and all the other descriptives you claim he doesn't understand.

YOU are the person who doesn't understand.

The earth could become a frozen iceball and your ilk would still proclaim humans caused it as the definition of what you try to define includes, now, ANY unusual or out of normal range weather.

Climategate and its significance means nothing to groups who are really only concerned about the next tax hike and government revenues that protect this scientific insanity and the jobs it promises to create in public sector life ( and SAVE THOSE WHO LIED! ) Never mind the relevance. Right? Just continue to promote the false significance to the academics that claim it is all true without ever having proven ANY of it!

You are included in the mindset. Don't think that the public isn't catching on. You look more ridiculous by the day defending the indefensible.

"Climate change" is inevitable. To blame humans based upon the facts redefines your group as the true "deniers" and "flat earthers". Welcome to Algores camp of ignorance.

I'd debate any of you proponents of AGW any time, any day in public and in any other forum. You're weak at best and fraudulent at worst concerning many of the facts about climatology and the earth's climate record and have become easy targets to defeat.

BTW, Jim Hansen has cooked the books on climate. Just look at what meteorologist Joe D'Aleo disovered about the climate records kept in the US by NASA. It's all on "Wattsupwiththat.com".

And yes,James Hansen from NASA is a real gem, getting arrested last summer protesting "global warming" and his fine unproven "tipping points". Looked a lot like someone with the credibility of "Tree Arrow" who is in federal prison for destroying fedral forest land. What an embarrassment to NASA! And what a joke! Your hero!

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Interesting that Carla Axtman calls Wingard "science-denying." Really? Has she checked out the little problems with the IPCC lately? Who's denying science now, Carly cue? Or, are you okay with folks on government grant payrolls fudging numbers, using advocacy info, plotting up-curves when stats really went down? Is that what you mean by science? Who's science do you mean, only that which you agree with? But seriously, if you want to go ahead and keep pumping your money into this fiasco, be my guest. I prefer to spend it on science with integrity. And btw, you're losing yours.

You folks who feel that the prevailing scientific view of climate change is wrong might get more traction if you could express yourselves in a dispassionate, professional manner. This angry teabagger stuff doesn't go over well with normal people. Perhaps your points have validity, I could accept that, but as a non-expert I tend to downgrade arguments presented by apparent nuts.

LOL, MP!

My fault for not proofreading.

It should be Stand for Children!

Thanks for a good laugh!

I viewed the Wingard video and wondered if the bill of particulars that he listed are true. Is antarctic ice really at normal levels? Are polar bear populations really increasing? Did the IPCC really use a citation from a magazine in its predictions for Himalayan glaciers?

Unfortunately, Carla's post didn't address a single one of Wingard's claims. She just swept them all away.

I for one would like to know if those things are true. Carla do you have any evidence that they are not? It seems like you are more of the science-denier here, since you didn't address a single one of Wingard's points.

Just sayin'.

It bears remembering that the Know Nothings were a significant segment of the Republican Party when it was formed in 1860.

Two comments are appropriate: The first from the philosophical French: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." The second from the great American philosopher Ron White: "You can't fix stupid."

Carla:

Slight correction. Wingard is not a denier.

Matt Wingard is a denier convicted for assault in the fourth degree for hitting his son in the head with a screwdriver.

Carla,

First, the Antarctica link you gave was nothing but a regurgitation of old alarms with fresh rhetoric, laced with "probably" and "likely", to make it appear as new scientific evidence of melting and sea rise.

You perception is conveniently lame.

Why don't you quote that brilliant climate dude Bill Bradbury who tells people Portland Airport and downtown will be underwater.

Or how about the Oregon Environmental Council who claims parts of the Oregon coast are already submerged from AGW?

Go read it again gal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387137.stm

If anything has been more concocted than the AGW effects on the polar bear populations I don't know what it is.

It's truly laughable that you would actually mention the polar bears.

There has been many IPCC admitted departures from peer reviewed data. The recent unraveling has discovered extensive IPCC inclusion and reliance upon Greenpeace and WWF activist propaganda.

There is abundant and current analysis showing extensive misrepresentation of glacier melt, manipulation of historical temperature records and other fatal flaws in the IPCC work.

You may think it's "indeed problematic" but there is nothing linking AGW to glacier fluctuation.

Your fantasy of "established and peer-reviewed data" showing a AGW footprint is wishful thinking.

But here again it is you and yours ignoring pieces to the puzzle. Such as expanding glaciers and widespread expanding of glaciers from 1950 to 1975.

You want to believe everything you see is connected to and demonstrates AGW. That's not science.

Just as Jane Lubchenco's Dead Zone link was not science.

Why is it that you all buy every single claim made?

Why is it that blues don't mind the proposed spending of countless millions on a NEW National Climate Center to pump out endless and useless drivel by a new bureaucracy?

I just can't stand that we would allow good policy be distorted this way.

If you don't beleive that carbon emmissions are not responsible for a unusual, even harmfull cliamate change, and that human activity is primarily the contributing factor, fine!

Then explain how you enjoyed paying the oil companies $4-$5 a gallon for gas. Then explain how you enjoyed Enron stealing our hydro power to exploit California's power shortage. Then tell me that energy from coal, oil, and natural gas is not distorting our economy, our national security, and our very form of democracy!

I would go back to where this narrative began. Ronald Reagan told fairy tales about a welfare momma in a Cadillac driving up to the welfare office for her monthly check, about that family that would loose the farm because of the 'death tax', and the famous 8 words; "Hello, I'm from the government and here to help!"

30 years later we stil are looking for that welfare momma, that farmer who lost his farm to anything other than a corporate developer, and we have been listening and following people for little other reason than they have more entertaining ways to defile our government.

I remind the readers, in a democracy like ours in theorey atleast, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! Remember, "We the People, for the people and by the people.........."

So, the theorey goes, if I can explain that government is the problem, and my party already runs government, then you should vote for me to run government because I don't believe in government the most! You need to know what our problem is??

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, all had drafts. We won the first war, and the Greatest Generation made us the Greatest Nation on earth. We had a draw in Korea, but won the Cold War. Vietnam showed us what happens when we lie about a war, and draft citizens for such a lie.

We have two wars, no draft, and one of two parties stil peddling that governement is the problem while starting war with lies!! Is it any wonder the consequenses are what we are experiencing today?

Wow, I see chuckie, dick, and nick are all in full-denier meltdown this weekend. Man you guys just keep cutting and pasting the same old crap with same old tired links.

Oh, and regarding your manufactored concern over the manufactored "climategate" (as you call it - so original)Dr. McCarthy, board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a statement last year that e-mails stolen from climate scientists have no bearing on our overall understanding of climate science.

The letter reads in full: "The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming."

Similarly, a Nature editorial published states there is no reason for its editors to revisit papers submitted by scientists whose e-mails were stolen.

The American Meteorological Society also recently stated the e-mails gave them no reason to revisit its conclusion that human activity is driving climate change.

Hey Chuckie - are you a member of any of these organizations? Do you have any peer reviewed reseach you would like to share with use. No no no I don't mean crap from the Heritage Foundation that you keep in your email folder. Yeah, I didn't think so.

And therein lies the difference - I don't give 2 shits over what chuckie, dick, and nick think. But when guys that actually go to college and actually graduate and actually perform peer-reviewed reseach and want to share their results, well then maybe I'll give them 10 minutes of my time.

Hell, I could waste my whole weekend with you morons but the fact of the matter is your entire knowledge of this subject is about as deep as piss on a flat rock. So run along - I hear your child-beating mentor and James "Bought by Big Oil" Inhofe will be holding a joint press conference real soon.

(oh god - remember at the last IPCC conference when Inholfe held a press conference claiming absolute proof that GW was a hoax and the only people that showed up were 3 members of the press that heckled him? F$%king Classic!!)

My sincere apologies to Nick Wirth, who is not currently nor to the best of my knowledge has ever had a GW denier meltdown.

Larry McD commented: It bears remembering that the Know Nothings were a significant segment of the Republican Party when it was formed in 1860.

Two comments are appropriate: The first from the philosophical French: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." The second from the great American philosopher Ron White: "You can't fix stupid."

Larry, probably ought to read up a bit on the history of the 'Know Nothing' movement before posting here. You may not be able to fix stupid but you usually can fix ignorant with a little bit of effort. They weren't called 'Know Nothings' because people considered them stupid. The origin of the "Know Nothing" term was in the semi-secret organization of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply, "I know nothing."

Further, the Republican Party was formed in 1854 over opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. By then, the American Party (i.e., the 'Know Nothing' party) had split into pro- and anti-slavery factions. Most of the anti-slavery members joined the Republican Party after the 1857 Dred Scott decision. The pro-slavery wing lived on a few years in the South until the beginning of the Civil War.

It's curious that during the Civil War, no party politics were allowed in the Confederacy as the Democratic Party there was dominant... sort of like the way today's Democratic Party would like things to be with their ceaseless calls for bipartisanship. Talk about "The more things change, the more they stay the same."...

It's amusing to watch airhead on both sides who actually don't understand the science argue over climate change as a proxy for irrational political positions. For every Chuck Wiese who thinks we will think signing himself as a "Meteorologist" means he is an expert, there's a Carla thinking we will think that because she offers a bibliography she is credible. And for every Nelson who thinks we would be dumb enough to believe what a lobbyist says about anything, there's a Hunt who thinks we dumb enough to believe what a current-day politician says about anything.

On Blue Oregon it's a just a sad example of people who have nothing of value to offer anyone demonstrating why you wouldn't even want to socialize with them. But in Salem, these are people who can do real damage to people's lives. Keeping the difference in mind and making sure the burning spotlight is kept on those who are doing real damage in their corrupting lust for power and incompetence, like both Nelson and Hunt, is the imperative right now.

I want to know who wrote Wingard's statement. I have heard many of those same false assertions before.

Was it Mark Nelson?

Was it Russ Walker?

Was it Marc Morano?

just saying......

And here's where to find "safe for blogs" info, and an iPhone App, to refute head cases like Chuck Wiese:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Carla Axtman commented: Science says that one subpopulation is increasing, 8 are decreasing, etc (already cited upthread).

The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG = self-proclaimed authoritative source for information on the world's polar bears) and/or Polar Bears International have not been elected or appointed the single-point voice for 'science'... Polar Bears International is just a special interest group no different from thousands of others promoting their own particular causes.

First off, the PBSG quickly acknowledged after last year's Copenhagen news release that 'the mixed quality of information on the different subpopulations means there is much room for error in establishing' the numbers, and 'the potential for error, given the ongoing and projected changes in habitats and other potential stresses, is cause for concern.'

'Science' speak with forked tongue?

Further, the PBSG barred Dr Mitchell Taylor, who has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years as both an academic and a government employee, from attending last July's conference in Copenhagen. While no one doubted his undeniable expertise on polar bears, Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful." This is how the PBSG gets 'consensus'? Is the PBSG really just all about polar bears or are they carrying water for another agenda? We all know the answer to that.

Environmentalists have long used charismatic large animals that invoke powerful attachments in humans to raise awareness of and promote policy solutions to perceived environmental threats. Giant pandas (the symbol of the World Wide Fund for Nature), whales and other sea mammals, salmon and other inspirational fish, eagles and other flashy raptors - penguins got an entire movie of their very own.

Such campaigns are highly effective -using these types of animals as "poster children" for broader conservation has worked with grizzly bears, wolves, and sea otters. And the money follows the glamour. The polar bear is just the latest 'warm and cuddly' animal to become an environmental pet project.

The fact is polar bears are not fragile "canary in the coal mine" animals, but robust creatures that have survived past periods of extensive deglaciation. Polar bear fossils have been dated to over one hundred thousand years, which means that polar bears have already survived an interglacial period when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are at present and when, quite probably, levels of summertime Arctic sea ice were correspondingly low.

alcatross demonstrates an elementary logical fallacy this is quite common to the pseudo-rational climate change denier cult:

The fact is polar bears are not fragile "canary in the coal mine" animals, but robust creatures that have survived past periods of extensive deglaciation. Polar bear fossils have been dated to over one hundred thousand years, which means that polar bears have already survived an interglacial period when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are at present and when, quite probably, levels of summertime Arctic sea ice were correspondingly low.

This is called "Hasty Generalization". Just because in the fossil record shows ancestor species of today's polar bear survived the type and amount of deglaciation that occurred on a pre-industrial earth doesn't mean descendent species of today's polar bear would survive the type and amount of deglaciation that would occur if the earth was still de-industrialized or of an industrialized earth. It's that simple and that unarguable.

Now, despite being one who finds the scientific evidence persuasive that human-forced climate change is a threat, I don't want the kind of mentally-limited folks we as Democrats tend to send to Salem or DC to be legislatively active in the irresponsible, ignorant ways they will be inclined to be. "Green" has become a very counterproductive fad (in case you haven't noticed the paralysis of policy polarization) and Gore's egotistical movie exercise did considerable damage to the cause.

Saturday Funnies commented: Just because in the fossil record shows ancestor species of today's polar bear survived the type and amount of deglaciation that occurred on a pre-industrial earth doesn't mean descendent species of today's polar bear would survive the type and amount of deglaciation that would occur if the earth was still de-industrialized or of an industrialized earth. It's that simple and that unarguable.

My my... I didn't realize we had such a double-threat expert on both the psychology of the climate change denier cult and the evolution and adaptability of polar bears here...

Nothing is certain - but just raising the question is not the same as credibly projecting they won't. If we're now going to have to live in paralyzed fear of every hypothetical negative outcome that may happen 100,000 years from now, we better just shut it all down.

One lead author of the IPCC says that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995 and the current rate of global warming is similar to 4 previous warming periods. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

And this same guy got caught hiding faults in their data ("hide the decline"), asking others to delete emails subject to a FOI ("IPCC & FOI: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?") and several other crimes.

And IPCC lead author Trenberth admits that "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

And "Hockey Stick" Mann says it would be nice to get ride of the Medieval warm period ("it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP") and this: "As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations"

IPCC author Tom Wigley admits to tampering with the data ("So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip...I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip")

He goes on to admit that "there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC"

IPCC lead author Keith Briffa said: "there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more" and "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same"

The CRU which is the foundation of the IPCC receives funding from British Petroleum and Shell oil. As you know, support of an oil company totally discredits an organization, so the while IPCC is worthless by your own standard. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

How can you still believe in AGW when it stopped 15 years ago, there was never anything unuaual about it and now we find that the major perveyors have admitted to many criminal acts relating to the science?

Can all of the climate experts post their CV so that we can have some basis to judge your statements. Thank you. Links to your peer reviewed research would also be greatly appreciated.

Why don't you all require peep reviewed science for the many AGW fabrications?

You completely accept every claim made.

You haven't the slightest curiosity when it comes to the wholsale attribution of observations to global warming.

Every single time one is posted you ignore it.

Your entire crowd has no ability to respond to Lubchenco's fabricated link between AGW and Oregon's Ocean Dead zones? Or Bill Bradbury's wild claims?

Here's one of your AGW icons. Joe Romm says Lake Powell in Arizona and Nevada will go dry. "I think it is 10 to 15 years at most, except for the most diehard ant-science crowd. Things are accelerating. The Arctic will likely go nearly ice free in that time. Should be a big shock."

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/13/science-met-office-and-royal-society-on-the-connection-between-global-warming-and-extreme-weather/#comments

As for peer review itself, contrary to their rules, the IPCC has been found to have used many non peer reviewed reports from activist sources Greenpeace and WWF.

Posted by: Richard | Feb 13, 2010 7:49:28 PM

Why don't you all require peep reviewed science for the many AGW fabrications?

Freudian slip of the month! I've been looking for a good tag for your "science". That's it. "Peep reviewed science". Such rigorous scientists, the peeps!

A lot of science is crap. The fact that deniers have taken to playing in it and hurling it with glee doesn't turn it into play dough. One of the things that Obama should be working to undo from the Bush admin is the way that cronyism and party line were allowed to completely dominate gov science, grants and personnel.

Richard: It is entertaining to read the idiotic insults of those like Carla, "Saturday funnies", "Scott in Damascus", ect.

I'm still waiting for ANY of these clowns to connect Co2's radiation downwell to ANYTHING they keep repeating, which none have done, which is needed to establish a cause and effect relationship to human caused climate change. Your requests, like mine will continue to fall on deaf ears with this crowd. None of these people demand or can provide proof of their assertions.

Hey Scott, Carla etal., if you're looking for nut cases, look in the mirror. You haven't come anywhere close to proving your case about human CO2 emissions and climate. You haven't established anything except the usual rants about any unusual weather or climate shifts that are all documented as part of the earth's normal history of temperature fluctuation and well within the establish long term range of temperature boundaries and long before the industrial revolution.

And Scott, do you ever pay attention to whats going on outside your AGW playworld? Peer review? AMS? It's all becoming a bit of a joke with "climategate". Peer review in this arena is worth about as much as the paper its written on concerning AGW, and I've read several pieces of late that should be balled up and put on a toilet paper dispenser that passed review.

My contentions are peer reviwed, but unlike yours, they were written years ago when the science of meteorology was first established and the process meant something. Why don't you ask Mann and his cronies about what it means today? I think he would tell you making sure him and his pals at the IPCC frustrate and refuse to accept or publish anything that contradicts his unproven and bogus assertions as well as the non scientific and political panel.

The gig is up with this and another few years of the onset of the coming global cooling trend should water you all down very nicely. I'd bet on Landscheidt's work and the recent discoveries of Dave Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations and Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn from the UK ANYTIME, ANY DAY over the nonsense that is posted on this site.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 2, 2009 5:22:10 PM

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 height 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.

The points are still valid. mp is making the point again. You're here purely to elicit an emotional reaction. That is being a troll. It's also stupid from a personal safety POV. A lot of folks get pretty worked up when you casually play with major problems, dooming their children to a life of misery so that you can make cheap points. I've had to resort to law enforcement after using my name ONCE here, but they were all convicted felons. You really rely on the basic civility of the masses. So stop shitting in their nest.

You hate pseudonyms because it hobbles your standard ad hominem response. Everyone that whines about that without agitating for the blog to explicitly require accounts is either doing the same or a media whore. Check out t.a.'s blog . Immaculately managed. No jerks, no trolls, no spam, no ads., no anonymity. The fact that this one doesn't follow any of that is Kari's choice. Whine at him. I will repeat for all the luddites, in a blog setup like this one email address is the primary key, not the alias. It's also incredible that with centuries of examples of how most of the best writers have used pseudonyms that folks here still try to make it some kind of verdict on one's character. Better stop regarding Mark Twain with esteem. He used one, and lied about it!

Zarathusta: No, I'm here to defeat the dishonesty and politics behind the crazed movement of AGW.

None of you or the "science" you point to have established or measured the radiation and its effects from CO2 that you claim is causing the earth to warm.

If you could, I'd join your camp. But the only thing you do is point to unestablished, unproven links and assertions claiming they prove your point.But the fact is they contradict and supplant the founding work without disproving it concerning CO2 and water vapor.

I didn't write any of your assertions. People like Axtman do it for you. I'm here to contradict her and the BS that continues to spread untruths about climate.

And you are here why? An expert? A troller? A propagandist? Draining your emotions on a lost cause that looks worse by the day? :)

Take this guy, for example. His odd reference to Obama's election as "the birth of a bouncing black baby Bolshevik"

So how many mainstream papers referred to 43 as "the irresponsible son of a well connected international crime family"? This is where the claim that the media is biased to the left is just batshit crazy. It's not a normal distribution. You can't find normal variation to the left like you can to the right. Your catch is a very good case in point.

You've got to admire the chutzpah of the right and their "socialist" taunts, now that historians are documenting the real role granddaddy Bush played in setting up the Nazi's financial systems.

Ignore the rightwing thinktank upchuck spew! Crazy Chucky runs a right wing thinktank that exists for no other reason than to promote this BS. He has no connection to science. Use the SOS data to do a UCC lookup. Funded by big energy. THAT is why he publishes here. Only dumpster that doesn't spew back. I love it. "I use my name so I can't be a goddamned liar". Cheap fucking despair salesman...

Mr. Fox: That corporation I own holds a patent on a product I developed called the Windicator. It has a US Patent number 5,372,039 entitled "Apparatus and Method for Determining Geostrophic Wind Velocity" if you had bothered to look it up, but then, I doubt you vould understand the descriptive.

I didn't realize that this invention was connected to any "political right wing think tank".

You're a self presuming idiot.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Mr. Fox: Should I sue you for making a public and false accusation about me, my company and what it exists for?

Matt Wingard is a fucking loser. If you ever see him, ask him if he can make you a screwdriver cocktail.

Clackamas County, the county where we elect child abusers to the State Legislature.

Chuck F Wiese = biostitute*

• climate change denier paid by the fossil fuel industry to counter real scientific research with bullshit

Sure is amusing to watch the ignorant losers here pile on the only one present that actually studied science and actually insult him for having a, gasp, patent. The rest only studied Al Gore and became true believers, like good little mindless nazis who can only insult those better than them.

You can sense that they know their climate fraud is falling apart and Al Gore is being shown for the fraud and liar that he is and they are helpless to keep hiding the truth.

Do these fools even know that water vapor, not CO2 causes most of the greenhouse effect?

Or that man only emits 4% of the total annual CO2 emissions?

The fact remains that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world agree that global climate change is real and is either caused by or made worse by human activity. Chuck F Wiese may hold a patent but that doesn't make him credible expert.

Marie - How are you paid, by the hour or by the post?

Reagan was right. Government is not the solution, government is the problem!

The free market (Laissez-faire Capitalism) did not cause this crisis, the government (CRONY Capitalism/Socialism/Communism) did.

The free market did not create Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae and Sallie Mae, the government did.

The free market did not pass laws that force banks to lend to those who do not qualify for a loan, the government did.

The free market did not take us off the gold standard, the government did.

The free market did not dump trillions of dollars of cheap money into the system causing the largest asset bubble in history, the government did.

The free market did not create multiple multi-trillion-dollar unfunded entitlement programs, the government did.

The free market did not write a 60,000+ page tax code that punishes work, rewards sloth and buys the votes of special interest groups, the government did.

The free market did not destroy our public school system and graduate (or fail to graduate) generations of civically and financially illiterate citizens, the government did.

The free market did not drive our jobs overseas and kill our entrepreneurial spirit with over-taxation, over-regulation and frivolous lawsuits, the government did.

The free market did not ban drilling for oil, vilify coal and block the building of nuclear power plants in the United States, thereby transferring hundred of billions of dollars of American wealth and many thousands of energy-industry jobs to foreign countries, the government did.

This crisis is the result of a giant social engineering experiment and vote-buying scheme gone tragically wrong.

The free market does not try to engineer society or buy votes, the government does.

The government caused this crisis, the free market did not.

The government cannot fix the crisis, the free market can.

Well who are you, Pedro, and what qualifies YOU to determine who has any expertise on the subject? How are you paid, by the hour or by the post as a political hack with your unprovable asesertions? Who do YOU work for? What is YOUR real name?

Being a degreed meteorologist in atmospheric science gives me plenty of "authority" to write about this and none of you have been able to point to any errors concerning my content. Lot's of personal attacks, though, that have zero credibility.

The only thing AGW propoents have EVER been able to do to assert their "authority" is to point to an event WITHOUT the established link of causation and blame the weather event or warming trend on human activity, particularly CO2 emissions. So I keep asking and am asking again, PEDRO, where are the measurements of IR radiation from the orbiting satellites above the earth that identify and confirm the IR emission signal from the increased CO2 that matches climate model projections and tracks the surface air temperatures, sea surface temperatures and land temperatures? Hmmm?

THE'RE NOT THERE PEDRO, CARLA, SCOTT IN DAMASCUS, et al!!

How many times does this need to sink in and be repeated before you realize because of the lack of these mesaurements and identifications you have no case?

Every bit of the warming and cooling we have put together in earth history so far can be explained easily by natural variation. We know enough about natuaral variation to explain a lot of it. The Co2 warming hypothesis has not been and is not proven or validated. It is obscured and hidden in bogus climate models which have NO PROVEN USEABLE VALUE TO PROJECTING ANYTHING AND TO DATE THE PROJECTIONS OF WARMING ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.The model projections of increasing water vapors optical depth as CO2 incraeses are also at odds with the founding physics which none of your heros are able to refute. They have tried, but so far, only come back with failed modeling.

There isn't a paper published anywhere that has closed the contradictions and established an IR radiation link to CO2 or ANY of the recent warming that stopped twelve years ago.

If any of you can find it and measure its intensity to match a climate response, I'll guarantee you you'll be up for a Nobel in physics. Until then, you are flaunting and touting a failed hypothesis that deserves to go down in a heap of rubble and disgrace the scientists who have lied about it, grossly exaggerated it and misled the public so as to rip the taxpayers off to the tune of billions beacuse they didn't take the time or make the effort to confirm their hypothesis before warning the world we're all doomed unless we change the way the free world operates. All while cashing in at every one else's expense.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

I see the classy blue potty mouths are coming out.

This AGW issue is the mother of all left wing blunders.

Your ridiculous tantrums and total inability to perceive the matter honestly is exposing you for what you are.

I'd say Michael Savage and Rham Emanual are right.

Uh, Carla, then that means in your case, you're like an untrained quack physician giving bad advice on how to treat ailments you know nothing about.

Just answer the question, Carla. Cat got your tounge?

Where is that IR radiation measurement off the satellites that verifies climate model projections????

Tick...tick....tick. Uh, yeah, I didn't think you coould provide it, nor can any of the scientists you tout either.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Just a note of support for Meteorologist Chuck Wiese. He is an excellent scientist who knows the ins and outs of Anthropogenic Global Warming very well.

As a physicist, I'm not interested in all the name-calling on this site. Science is about careful study, reason, and most of all EVIDENCE.

If people are really interested in science, they need to learn something about it. Representative Matt Wingard obviously took the time to learn something about Global Warming and should be commended for a scientifically accurate presentation.

Although Matt is a Republican, and political opinion on Global Warming tends to breakdown along party lines, that is far from the case amongst scientists. Many prominent scientific opponents of Global Warming hysteria are Democrats, including Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever. He campaigned for Obama in 2008 but joined with me last year to urge Obama to cease promoting this mass hysteria.

One way to start learning something about our climate is to visit a mostly neutral website like the University of Illinois "Cryosphere Today:"

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

They have excellent graphics that show the current state of our polar regions, as well as prior history (but just over the recent satellite era). Note that Rep. Wingard was precisely correct about Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

Science is so much more interesting than politics. Give it a try.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD Corbett, Oregon USA

I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. The computer models of the climate that form one of the main bases for the theory that CO2 causes global warming look very iffy to me. I can give anyone who's interested chapter and verse.

The anger around here against anyone who questions the theory makes me wonder if belief in global warming is something more like a secular religious phenomenon than a science-based belief. That science-based part is falling apart, in case you haven't noticed.

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The climate is a very complex chaos-theory type of system, capable of generating emergent behavior that is not predictable based on the kind of linear relationships you're talking about. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and chaos/complexity theory tell us that the reasoning you're presenting here is way too simple to match the reality of the climate.

That posters and idiots like Wingard think otherwise dispute the direct observational actual data and evidence is amazing.

What's amazing to me is the anger management issue that folks on your side of the issue continually display. "Idiots???" Is that how your mother taught you to conduct a debate?

lestatdelc: No, you are wrong. MORE IR radiation has been escaping to space as measured over the tropical oceans as measured by the ERBE satellite data and reported in Richard Lindzen's latest paper from MIT.

This is at odds with all computer climate model codes that predicted a decrease in outgoing IR with an increased "greenhouse effect" from the increasing CO2.

The increased OLR is consistant with the slight warming of sea surface temperatures during the last warm phase of the PDO that ended around 1998.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

One way to tell scientists from "scientists" is that the former tend to cite their own literature, and the latter have no literature. I'm certain that the meteorologist has a long list of well received papers in the standard peer-reviewed journals, and just forgot to make reference to them in the heat of argument. Certainly he can point the interested reader to his CV, which is no-doubt on-line somewhere.

Steve: I am not a research scientist, nor did I ever state I was. That has nothing to do with myself or anyone elses ability to understand what is going on by referring to others work.

Like it or not, this CO2 warming hypothesis is at odds with all the peer reviewed literature that constructed the founding work in atmospheric radiation years ago and there are no scientists that have been able to refute it.

It WAS supplanted with climate models, which any atmospoheric scientist should know, are incapable of projecting temperature or ANY other parameter accurately through large time intervals. It can't be done as claimed and those who have stated otherwise are lying.

The hypothesis is rapidly degenerating out of a scientific context and into political religious convictions.

The earth is in no danger of catastrophic melt down and the claims made that attempt to connect recent warming events to human activity remain unproven.

To carry this step a bit further, I would wager with anyone that the earth is about to under go significant cooling due to solar magnetic changes on the sun that are ushering in the coming Gleissburg minimum in 2030 that is also coupling with the lunar gravitaional changes that effect the advection of tropical airmasses to high latitude. Recent satellite measurements of the suns radiative output show that the prior belief that the solar constant does not fluctuate much are also wrong.

There has been a measured 2Wm-2 decline in the visible spectrum and a whopping 6% drop in UV radiation with this last solar minimum.

El Ninio activity will be the only hope of slowing down any cooling forthcoming, and even now, the effects with this one have not staved off record snow and cold to a lot of the world.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

New English Library Ltd 01/11/1985, 1985. paperback. Acceptable RECEIVE A FREE BOOKMARK WITH EACH ORDER PLACED Small rips to ends of spine. Creases to cover & spine. Tanning to pages. We are a family run business based on the edge of the Cotswolds in the UK. http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/acai-max-cleanse-review-1794230.html

Carla you a fool. Your warmig relegion go caught lying:

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it."

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified."

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

ta barnhart and Kevin: The only thing you do is denigrade and insult.

Your comments are intellectually vacant and neither of you like the rest have been able to show me where my statements are wrong.

You deflect from the issue by changing the direct subject and pointing to things that do not disprove what I have said and then you hurl some sort of insult.

Not convincing, but revealing.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

That's just creepy, K arlock calling himself "Marie".

lestatdelc: Well aware that the systems in question are highly complex (and as you note) chaos-theory type dynamics. However the facts remain that empirical evidence of both rising global temperatures and rising CO2 levels is just that, direct observable measurable fact.

Your "however" is off the point and irrelevant. Your "direct observable fact" is not proof of causality. If you don't realize that, you need to go back and study logic again.

lestatdelc: Sorry, no blather there. Lindzen's critics don't like the results given in the paper so they show by changing end points that the result can be wiped out. But then they give no convincing reason why you should do that in the first palce.

The sensitivity factor was computed correctly in the analysis, and it is pointless to complain the analysis only covered the tropics. That is the easiest and most relevant place to look for an AGW signal, given it depends on water vapor feedback.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

What blather. You seem to be buying the bad data analysis of the debunked MIT papers by Richard Lindzen.

Whatever you choose to believe about this, the science is not over.

Let's take the case of those computer models of the climate that are the basis for the claim that CO2 is causing global warming. You know when one of those models was independently reviewed? 40 years ago!

Given what just came out in the Climategate file HARRY_READ_ME.txt, it's clear to me that the software and data need to be reviewed by folks who are competent in those areas. There's strong evidence that the climate researchers may lack such competence.

lestatdelc: BTW, increasing Co2 and temperature are not proof of causation by themselves, especially when the larger record shows the CO2 rise lags temperature by 800 years.

Since the industrial revolution, humans have produced more, but this is not a link of causation to ocean heat content either, and I might add, when you speak of heat content, are you assuming it is sensible or energy input from solar insolation? The latter is extremely difficult to calculate not being able to absolutely determine the insolation over every square meter of ocean or being able to know precise evaporation rates from the large surface areas involved.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

t.a. barnhart
anyone who has read Thomas Kuhn knows exactly what's going with people like Chuck Wiese & others who refuse to acknowledge the science that's busting them over the head. this is an ancient story. Wiese would have been in the back of the crowd yelling for the pope to punish Gailleo.

Have you ever bothered to look at the real evidence for your alarmism? Your whole case rests on 1. CO2 rise being co-incidental with temperature over a few years while IGNORING the fact that solar activity has been co-incidental over centuries of ups & downs. 2. Unusual rate of warming. But CRU head, IPCC lead author Jones just debunked this warmer lie. 3. MWP being cooler than now. But the best CRU head, IPCC lead author Jones could do is say there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to prove this claim. 4. Recent temperature measurements that are clearly contaminated by urban heat island. NO ONE knows the actual rise. 5. A total claimed rise of about 0.9 degree, but the stated error is 0.5 degree. 6. No PROOF that CO2 can cause warming in the real atmosphere.

AND THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER. We now know that because CRU head, IPCC lead author Jones just said so in the BBC interview.

So, tell us, mr. climate expert (who thinks he knows more that a degreed meteorologist Chuck Wiese) just WHAT IS YOU PROOF THAT THE EARTH HAS A FEVER?

I haven't quite figured out why GW is so important to progressives. What exactly is it about this rather complicated hypothesis that has become so important to progressives. Most progressives can't even understand the science that is being discussed but they argue angrily about the topic at the drop of a hat. Is it just a trogan horse for big government? Do progressives see that the only way to stop GW is some sort of global government and that is what they secretly want? Does it has something to do with energy companies and coal companies and driving them out of business? What exactly is the big deal? Why all the hysteria, is that just fake or do people really think overblown hysteria is called for? A bunch of stuff that Al Gore spews forth is wrong and some of it is outright lies but progressives seem to worship at his feet. He is making you look like fools but that doesn't seem to bother most progressives.

Let's go back to the items in the 'speech' - or editorial Wingard 'shared'.

According to the American Meteorological Society global mean temperatures have been rising steadily for the last 40 years; the NOAA recorded second highest Global Ocean Temperature in December 2009, and the World Meteorological Organization says that the last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.

Arctic Sea ice was at at its second and third lowest recorded summer lows in the last 2 years, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Some of us may realize Antarctica is a continent, so the ice lives mostly on the land, not on the sea; hence Antarctic sea ice is not the issue.

Polar bears became a protected species in the early 1970's, but there is no doubt their habitat is disappearing - the IUCN found in 2009 that of 19 bear subpopulations, 8 are declining, 3 are stable and 1 is increasing (7 have insufficient data). USGS stated in 2007 that sea ice reduction would result in loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear populations by 2150.

Water vapor does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect alongside carbon dioxide; but NASA has explained that water vapor is much more short-lived in the atmosphere; water vapor is considered a 'feedback' which only adds to the warming 'forced' by increased carbon dioxide.

As to the 'climategate' affair in Britain there has been much written, but there has been no finding of rigged data, what has been disclosed by hacked emails is that scientists can be as rude and dismissive as the worst politicians. "Hiding the decline" is not referring to measured temperatures but reconciling data from tree rings with other sorts of data. An open letter to Congress from 25 leading US scientists on December 4 stated "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming."

Wingard preciously also stated that climate change is "something the rest of us call weather" - this indicates the ignorance he is suffering under; weather describes if it will rain in a local area today or tomorrow; predicting 5 days out is near impossible for weathermen as we all know. Climate Change is concerned with the long term and global affect.

Climate science is concerned with long-term global trends of ocean and land temperature. Politicians should be concerned about the affects of climate change on our abilities to grow the same crops, have access to sufficient water, and potential resulting population migrations. Instead in Wingard we have somebody who is not looking out for the interests of his constituents, much less those in the rest of the state.

So why does the "conservative" set argue so strenuously against it? Are you people paid? Most educated people nominally accept the prevailing science as the best available opinion. Even a responsible skeptic would allow for the possibility that the predictions will prove correct, given the seriousness of the consequences. The people who entirely discount the science are not really part of the debate. The science will lead where it leads, and most educated people, "progressive" or not, will accept that.

simon said According to the American Meteorological Society global mean temperatures have been rising steadily for the last 40 years;

<h2>Problem is that the data is crappy. There is no traceability to original sources. The adjustments are undocumented. There is NO WARMING in most of the un-adjusted records! There is insufficient compensation for the heat island effect. And the total rise is 0.9 degree while the margin of error is 0.5 degree. There is evidence that the 1930s were warmer than recently and certainly many Viking farms in Greenland are still buried in the ice. Claims that the recent rate of warming is unusual was just debunked by the CRU head himself in the BBC interview. He also admitted that there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING for the last 15 years and that the climate debate is NOT OVER. If you have not read the interview, read is as a sure cure for lefty lies.</h2>

Arctic Sea ice was at at its second and third lowest recorded summer lows in the last 2 years,

<h2>But the record is only a few years. Go back to 1905 and you find the New York times reporting the arctic ice being clear enough to sail the NW passage. (New York Times Dec 7, 1905)</h2>

Water vapor does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect alongside carbon dioxide; but NASA has explained that water vapor is much more short-lived in the atmosphere; water vapor is considered a 'feedback' which only adds to the warming 'forced' by increased carbon dioxide.

<h2>That view has been pretty much been discredited outside of the alarmist circles (including NASA)</h2>

As to the 'climategate' affair in Britain there has been much written, but there has been no finding of rigged data, You should try reading some of them, instead of lefty apologists. For instance:

942777075.txt: I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

1256735067.txt : As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

1254108338.txt: So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip... I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip

1255553034.txt: there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC

1177890796.txt: I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties .

<h2>968691929.txt: I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation.</h2>

"Hiding the decline" is not referring to measured temperatures but reconciling data from tree rings with other sorts of data.

Hiding the decline is about hiding the fact that over 1/3 of total record, tree rings don't work. If this were fully appreciated, the whole field of tree-ring temperature proxies would be destroyed and the IPCC along with it.

Julie: Nice summary and well written. The text messages from climategate are obvious when placed in chronological order and need no detailed explanation to link the manipulation of data to fit model projections. That was the whole purpose. To cover up the ineptitude and failed modeling which is needed to advance the hypothesis because the original work in atmospheric radiation had to be supplanted since it couldn't be refuted.

And it is the advancement of this false hypothesis that gives governments their reasoning to tax and regulate carbon. And this isn't just about a small taxing either. It entails some of the biggest pushes to raise taxes and regulate peoples lives ever contrived. It is huge. And baseless because of the obvious perpetration of this false science and fraud.

And Simon's quoting how water vapor is an "IR feedback" rather than the controlling GHG over CO2 is provenly wrong science. Every bit of the founding work along with radiation measurements prove that water vapor is the primary AND controlling GHG of the Earth's longwave infrared radiation emission to space. A gas humans have absolutely no control over.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

<hr/>