Although current climate science has shown that the world has warmed approximately 0.6° Celsius (1.1° Fahrenheit) during the past century, half of this warming occurred before human carbon dioxide emissions could have been responsible. Humankind undoubtedly has some influence on the planet; however, the magnitude of that influence is certainly up for debate.

Alarmists such as yourself and many others on Blue Oregon have unjustifiably asserted that human-produced carbon dioxide is the main cause for current global warming; yet carbon dioxide is not the most influential greenhouse gas, and humans only contribute a mere 3.2% of overall carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The ill-informed hysteria over climate change is truly fueled by climate models of dubious quality that attempt to replicate all of the complex processes of Earth into a simple mathematical model. These models do not capture the complexities of feedbacks such as cloud formation and aerosols, and they should not be solely used to guide public policy that drastically alters our current way of life.

The truth is that the science of climate change is far from settled and there exists no consensus on the causes, effects, or future of climate change.

Despite the uncertainties, alarmists like yourself feel that we must act now in order to “save” the planet. However, there are three important questions to consider before implementing drastic public policy to “combat” climate change:

Is the current warming atypical of Earth’s history?

How much influence does human emitted carbon dioxide have on global temperatures?

Will global warming be a net benefit or a net cost?

If the current warming is not out of the norm, then alarmism fears and drastic action are unnecessary and may cause more harm than good. If human influence is negligible, then our attempts to “adjust” the global thermostat will be futile and undoubtedly very costly. If slightly higher temperatures would be a net benefit for humankind, then an attempt to reverse global warming would be an unwise objective.

Even if a significant hazard exists, there is no telling if public policies will be effective in altering global temperatures or if the costs of these policies outweigh the projected benefits.

2 readers like this

To state that somehow spending millions on solar energy in the state is going to in any way lower global temperatures is outlandish.

I honestly do not know even why I am commenting on such a ridiculous assertion....

If you had read the link it is not that I am against renewable energy. I just believe differently than you do on the subject. You believe in taking money through government force to fund projects you subjectively find desirable. I advocate for voluntary solutions that advance technologies according to market demand.

FORCE versus freedom.

2 readers like this

This is, of course, far off topic. To which I apologize.

I believe that fossil fuels should not receive subsidies either. Two wrongs never make a right. Let’s pull back layers of government without trying to use government to “solve” a government-created problem. Subsidies need to be understood better. They need to be standardized to understand the true level of subsidies for different energy forms. For an energy source that barely exceeds one percent of electricity output in the U.S., wind subsidies are $23 per megawatt hour (solar is on the same level). This is around 60 times that of the $0.44 per megawatt hour that go to the foundation of US electrical power output, coal. It is 100 times the $0.25 per megawatt hour that go to natural gas. Coal and natural gas account for over 70 percent of US electrical power supply.

Luckily, Oregon has a perfect case study to determine whether green jobs will reverse our unemployment trend. Spain is considered one of the leaders in expanding the renewable industry and promoting a green job agenda. A Spanish economic study was released recently that assessed the impact of government spending on job creation-more specifically, green job creation. Using two different economic methods, the authors found that for every green job that the government manages to finance, 2.2 jobs will be destroyed. Thus, pursuing green job creation may very well be counterproductive.

If the Oregon legislature wants to create jobs, the focus should be on creating a market environment that is conducive to job growth by lowering the tax burden on both corporations and individuals.

2 readers like this

Nick, that's really good news about those solar jobs--though perhaps I could use it as evidence that solar is spreading its wings and flying on its own.

I was referring to deals like Mayor Adams, BETC, and I forget who else just made to provide tens of millions of tax dollars to startup SoloPower, whose CEO, Tim Harris, has made no legal commitments to stick around long enough to produce the promised 481 jobs. I'm sure you know that recently the NY Times reported on a solar company that had a similar startup giveaway in Mass. and left for China after two years.

I'd feel better if executives had to make legal commitments and most of all if the state became a shareholder--the same a private investor. Then I think I'd say to a solar CEO, let's make a deal. But not with BETC's notorious track record of uncontrolled and unsustainable giveaways that already reach far into future state budgets.