The post you comment on was written a year and a half ago. Since then SOS Forests has migrated to another website [here]. This one is moribund. But I leave it up as a work of art.

I am so sorry that this post did not freaking please you. I am also sorry that you come to the discussion a year and a half late. A lot has happened in that time.

The Goober of Oregon was quoted in the Ogre-onian as saying that “George Taylor is not MY state climatologist.” Then he cut the funding for the Oregon Climate Service and George’s salary and forced him out. George lost his job. Was that cute? Was that clever on the part of the Goober?

Phil Mote fired the WA Assistant State Climatologist who differed with Phil on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Was that cute and clever?

It is cute and clever when people get fired for expressing their scientific convictions within scientific circles because political bosses and power brokers have a political agenda that is decidedly non-scientific?

Since I wrote this post, 30,000 scientists signed a letter claiming that the globe is not warming and that CO2 has nothing to do with it. The “consensus” about AGW never existed and now has been thoroughly discredited. Each of those signatories took a chance on their future employment because the same political bosses and power brokers remain, and they think nothing of firing people for failing to toe the party line.

There has been no global warming in 10 years. This past winter has been the coldest globally since the early 1900’s. The combination of a decline in solar irradiation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have overwhelmed any marginal effect from a trace gas (carbon dioxide). Even the IPCC have recanted their global warming predictions. Everything Taylor said has come to pass. Everything Mote said has failed to happen. We need not judge on debating style at this late date; we can judge on the basis of reality. Global Warming is a bankrupt theory and proven to be false on the basis of real world evidence.

You and the Goober need to get with reality and chuck your phony theories into the dustbin of history. The rest of us already have. Starving the world’s poor and inflicting punishing “carbon taxes” do nothing to the climate but they do serious harm to your fellow man. Please stop inflicting pain on others, anonindy. We all boor of it and of you and your ilk.

And I can’t help but notice, anonindy, that you wish to censor me and others, as well as starve and tax us to death in the name of your phony hoax. Free speech does not please you. And I notice that your phony name and phony email address makes you a secret censor. You wish to limit open and free speech but without revealing your identity. You carp and criticize from your secret spiderhole.

So you support censorship, limited speech, firing people you do not agree with, mass starvation, horrendous tax schemes, the crippling of the economy, and obeisance to political bosses and power brokers despite the overwhelming evidence that the party line and junk science are as phony as you are.

Here’s a thought, anonindy: get your own blog. Then you can spew whatever you please on your own site. Because frankly, anonindy, your brand of fascist groveling, snide censorship, and base stupidity displeases me. I feel no compulsion to give the likes of you a forum on any of my sites.

I did not create this work of art for twits like you. If you don’t like it, fork off chump.

Your Pal, Mike

Also, the Q-n-A isn’t available. That may be where Taylor won it, but the evidence isn’t available. In the available video, I’d give it to Mote, by a narrow margin. I’ve downloaded the PDFs, which might change my opinion.

But could you leave off the slurs? Some Web site, somewhere, has to realize that ‘argument’ doesn’t imply ‘Jerry Springer’. Perhaps this should be the place. Something to consider, anyway.

Rude = lose. It’s odd that you complemented these guys on their comportment, as if you valued that, then got your slur on. Where I come from, we have a word for that–hypocrisy.

Just freaking *stop* would you? It’s not cute. It’s not clever. It’s pedestrian, counterproductive, and ultimately boring.

I think it is particularly important to pay attention to Chuck Weise’s point that long-term climate predictive models, including all of the models being used to promote Global Warming, must be capable of predicting the past in order to be trusted to make projections forward in time. This is what Chuck terms “validation” of the climate models with which he is familiar. If all of the current models are unable to predict the past, as Chuck claims, then they are all useless, costly, and probably counterproductive.

If a recognizable model of a human can be made from five or six popsicle sticks, then a number of the current hagiarchy apparently think they can use those figures, apply vast strings of numbers and giant computers to crunch them, and then tell you where the human race will be in 30 years. That is what climate modeling is.

About 15 years ago I delivered an analysis of computerized climate models as reflected by documented historical forest conditions in the western US. Other scientists from Russia, China, Canada, and the US also delivered papers at the conference, and the results were published by EPA in 1993. The forest predictive models that were being used at that time to reflect climate change had the same flaws noted by Chuck Weise for current climate models:

a) they couldn’t accurately (or even close) predict the past;

b) they were incredibly simplistic, given the nature and complexity of the systems they purport to predict;

c) there were vast “gaps” in scale between the types of data gathered, the timeframes considered, and the long-term, global-scale predictions this stuff was claiming to produce. The problem was exacerbated by attempts to use multiple models to “span” these gaps.

That was before Al Gore got on the problem, though, and Ted Kulongoski in Oregon. My scientific research is in the area of western US catastrophic wildfires; my professional expertise is in reforestation and reforestation planning; and I have had some experience with computerized predictive models, including writing peer-reviewed publications on the topic. Here’s my best advice, based on those perspectives, if we want to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible in Oregon, and want to make good money doing it:

1) Stop unnecessary forest wildfires — a massive source of carbon in the sky — and protect our remaining (and highly threatened) old-growth at the same time by a comprehensive and sustained effort to remove competing brush and ladder fuels.

2) Log as many snags as possible as quickly as possible and turn them into solid wood products and electricity. The power is an off-set, but solid wood products will last longer than rotting snags–especially when they reburn. At this time there is a superabundance and unprecedented great number of dead trees in western Oregon. Their principal “function” (Conservation Biology-speak) seems to be to burst into incredibly hot and destructive flames from time to time, thereby further accelerating the carbon in the air problem, killing ever more wildlife, and destroying ever greater amounts of wildlife habitat and cultural resources. And threatening rural residents and communities, etc.

3) Plant a lot of healthy young trees to replace the dead trees, and begin regular maintenance with prescribed fire to protect the old-growth. The people doing this work would be ideally equipped and trained and located to manage occasional wildfires, further reducing long-term operating costs.

Trust me. If this prescription is followed, the Kulongoski crew will be boggled by the amount of carbon credits they can give to each other, and even to other states (California) and countries (Canada)! Plus, we’ll have great increases in stable, well-paid, skilled, full-time employment and good schools in our rural Oregon communities again; safe, beautiful, and attracitve forestlands; more wildlife, wildflowers, and wild berries; and a lot more carbon in our electricity, wood products, forests, and soil, and not in the air. Honest.

Bob Zybach

Mike,

It was a pleasure to get on KXL yesterday and go after this OSPIRG fraud. What really got my attention was his claim that the climate models reverse time integrate accurately and thus predict past climate accurately. This is incorrect and one of my complaints that I have repeatedly used on Lars’ show in the past.

These nuts skip phase three of the scientific method of validation of hypothesis. There is no validated scientific proof in climate modeling.

I have the IPCC spectral absorption coefficients used in the models, and if you run them in the presence of the most reasonable concentrations of water vapor, the results of increased absorption are grossly exaggerated. The 2.6 - 6 Watts/square meter in the models is an improper calculation. Some of these kooks have used absorption owing to CO2 alone rather than with water vapor, ignoring spectral band overlap that cuts total absorption by 2/3 in the real world.

The climate models (coupled earth, ocean atmospheric models) are NOT working. The models don’t properly handle GHG increased forcing, and ultimately (and wrongly) convert most of the forcing to sensible heat gain at the surface. The modelers are hypothesizing positive feedbacks that they allege amplify warming, but such mechanisms are imaginary.

Thanks for your positive comments. I will continue to lash out at these frauds whenever I can, but it is an uphill battle with the millions of dollars being spent to hype and smear the truth, including the messengers!

Chuck

PS This forwarded letter I sent to Lars yesterday is a summary of my position on the latest developments:

Hello Lars,

The strong language used in this report [IPCC the 4th] is precisely what I predicted would happen. On the flip side of the coin, you know that I am skeptical of this entire hypothesis. The basic physics and real world effects from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere just don’t jive with what climate computer models predict. In fact, I believe the currently popular models are gross exaggerations of actual outcomes, making climate change a non-issue with respect to the “human component”.

IPCC scientists are a stubborn group of individuals that refuse to accept this fact. Climate modeling is nothing more than a hypothesis that does not go beyond Step 2 of 3 using the scientific method. (Step 1 is discovery of a phenomenon, Step 2 is a hypothesis created to explain it, and Step 3 is proving the hypothesis with validating experiment). In the case of global warming, Step 3 would be demonstrating that the climate models are REAL working models of the earth, ocean, and atmospheric systems, and that running the models forward or backwards in time produces the same result for LARGE time periods, and that their predictions are consistent with the Earth’s past climate record, (which they are not).

Because this report pushes the envelope and attempts to jump to the third leg of the scientific method without validation, this makes the issue political and a religion to the claimants. I am left at this point to believe that because ALL of the funding for the IPCC and academic types that support it is from government and liberal funding grants, that their true purpose is not to learn or discover, but to create public policy and foist a new set of “carbon taxes” and regulation on the public.

The relationships of codependency are obvious and disgusting. Liberal politicians are now salivating over the creation of new taxation, and the academic types are assured continued rich funding and long term employment. They both win at the expense of the general public and the economy. This is corruption of science at its greatest.

Chuck

A point that might be raised here is how much carbon was cycled pre-Columbian…eh? Which anthros made the most smoke, then or now?

Politically speaking, carbon sequestration is the new Food Stamps/Welfare System for the non-working rich. Still, we must wonder what sort of impact cellulose-based sequestration can possibly have. Will it require burning wood in systems that include carbon exhaust scrubbers and underground injection? And what about all those other non-burnt forest products? What happens over centuries to piles of paper in landfills or stud walls? Can creosote and other wood preservatives save Planet Earth by preventing the gaseous specter of decay? Should we be freezing our lawn clippings so they don’t rot?

Oh, well, like Tim Wirth said, “Even if the science is wrong, it’s still the right thing to do.”

Huh?

I’m looking for someone who has worked with isotopes. I think the isotopic support used in the report is flawed because ice is an open system. Isotope evidence is used [inaccurately] as a proxy for temperature. Theoretically, the heavy isotopes O18 are selectively preserved in buried ice while the O16 dissipates more rapidly, but the record in deeper ice yields a false low and the near surface ice a false high because the O16 hasn’t left the system yet. If you know someone who has worked in this area, I’d like to communicate.

There are allegedly no salmon allegedly because of the dams–thus making salmon the exception in the world of commercial fishing, where overfishing has decimated most species. Commercial fishing for salmon here continues apace, while the dams are damned.

Or the spotted owl, the convenient surrogate for no public logging, a just punishment for the timber barons. Of course, the beneficiaries WERE the timber barons. Weyerhaeuser is a court proclaimed monopoly since the owl shut down mills dependent on public timber, and Big W is now in the process of closing the mills they bought from Willamette Industries. Control the biggest non-public block of timber, and shut down the mills that use that timber because they compete against their Canadian lumber production.

Pseudo-science has made Weyco billions, and made public timber a thing of the past–and oh by the way, Oregon hasn’t been able to finance public education since the shutdown, we got a rural meth epidemic, and Barred Owls are killing and breeding with Spotted owls who never lacked habitat, just protection from other owls.

A million or more marbled murrelets live and breed in a broad arc around the north Pacific from California to Japan. But on the margins of their habitat, they are a threatened species. Duh!!! Every plant and animal is always threatened on the margins of their habitat. They are either a pioneer or on their way to oblivion, because nature works that way.

Small science was used to gain a political goal, and small science will be used that way in the name of global warming. Governments finance research, and I am of the mind that a whole lot of this global warming issue is a great venue for capturing a whole lot of cash from Uncle Sugar for global warming research. Sort of like FEMA trailer houses. You can never have enough.

I am a skeptic. The Mote-Taylor debates are telling in that U of W just finished a two billion dollar endowment effort, which they were successful at. OSU can only wish they had that going for them. Taylor is probably an impediment to gaining Uncle Sugar cash in an algore worshiping Congress. Mote is probably right now renting a Penske truck to haul the loot that will surely come to U of W. His lot in academia is to walk the streets looking for Johns with dough. Taylor has too much class to participate. He will continue to be a scientist, and retire with a smile on his face. If he isn’t run out of Corvallis by that part of the OSU faculty who are true mis-believers.

Please tell the Seattle papers that Taylor was absolutely polite and warm towards Mote, and vice versa. They are good friends. Heck, at one point in the evening I thought they were going to kiss!

I was glad they didn’t.

Some shred of animosity might have been nice, but there wasn’t any that evening. (And you can view the tapes at OMSI to confirm that).

artesian1[at]sympatico[dot]ca