Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 20, 2007 5:27 AM. The previous post in this blog was TurboTax and the Oregon kicker, Day 4. The next post in this blog is For the record. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, December 20, 2007

EPA to states: Back off on CO2

Looks like those California greenhouse gas emission standards aren't going into effect without a court battle.

Comments (36)

Seems that arrogance isn't a one way street.

in school, we joked that the EPA didn't have much to do with the environment, and it rarely did much protection, so it should simply drop the E. and P. and be called: the Agency.

So much for the vaunted "states rights" that the GOP is always talking about. Sure, they looooooove states rights, just so long as those states are trying to lock up black people in prison or make teenage girls pledge their virginity to Jesus or cut people off of the welfare rolls. If those states want to let people die with dignity or control greenhouse gasses, the GOP suddenly rediscovers its love for a strong central government. How 'bout that!

I have to agree with the EPA on this one. Patchwork regulations will do nothing but drive prices up for everyone along with creating distribution problems. We see it every day in the gas prices we pay.

The discussion should be more along what policy we should follow as a nation instead.

Patchwork regulations will do nothing but drive prices up for everyone

Yes, we wouldn't want to overpay as we drown in our own waste.

Patchwork regulations will do nothing but drive prices up for everyone along with creating distribution problems.

you may not have read the article. "patchwork" regulations have been working for years in several states, without price or distribution problems.

Yes, we wouldn't want to overpay as we drown in our own waste.

It must be pretty deep in your neighborhood.

I'm not feeling any global warming in Portland. I still spend roughly 9 to 10 months of the year wrapped in multiple layers of clothing just as I had in my youth in Portland. I try nonetheless to keep my enviromental impact low. I didn't reproduce (no jokes, please), I drive only about 2,000 miles a year, and try to keep the thermostat down below 70. I think individual volunteer efforts is the way to go, not some orwellian type government dictates at the local, state or federal levels. Heck, most of the countries who signed Kyoto aren't living up to this agreement. In fact Europe and Canadian CO2 emissions are said to be growing significantly faster than those of the U.S. in recent years. There, enough angst. Go Blazers!

In fact Europe and Canadian CO2 emissions are said to be growing significantly faster than those of the U.S. in recent years.

Bob, have you got any source for that? because, in fact, the opposite is supposed to be true.

in any event, i'm not sure "who's polluting faster" is of much importance.

First off, Bob, do you have any factual sources for what you are saying. I doubt it. Global warming is here whether you feel it is or not, but thanks for trying to atleast have a low impact on earth.

Secondly, screw Bush's EPA...the states need to stand up to Bush and tell him to pound sand. The Fed's need to butt out!

Not so Expdx Global warming is here whether you feel it is or not, but thanks for trying to atleast have a low impact on earth.

JK: Actually the world has been cooling since 1998, the year tied with 1934 as the warmest since the “little ice age”. NASA data maintained by one of Gores’s “science” advisors clearly shows this. Have a look, its considered the best available data in the world: (Even this high quality data exaggerates recent warming. See

Record cold is starting to breakout all over:.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Then there is this near admission of a lying:
I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, bold added.

PS: CO2 is not the major “greenhouse” gas, water vapor is. See:
PS2: Historically, temperature rise has occurred BEFORE CO2 rise. See, be sure to note the twisted logic to try to pin the blame on CO2 after admitting CO2 did not start the warming at the end of ice ages

BTW realclimate is run be the creator of the fraudulent “hockey stick” temperature curve that Al Gore uses, so it should be credible to you.


CO2 is not a pollutant either.

The complete skewering of Gore and the IPCC case in 4 YouTube pieces.


The latest report just issued by the U.S. Senate's Cmte. on Environment and Public Works.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.

Portland, pollution city needs help. Less pollution = a healthier populus = happy people. Why buy a condo sandwiched between two major freeways that pollute 24/7?

Marla and JK

Thanks for the great information. Unfortunately, I doubt all the hard data in the world will change the minds of those who have bought into the "global warming religion."

These people have adopted this idea as a defining characteristic of their persona, just like the anti-abortion and anti-gay rights folks on the right have.

To admit they are wrong would be to lose their identities.

Once again, thanks for your hard work in presenting an intelligent case to support your point of view.


"warming or not warming" is a false dichotomy. try this (from an Oregon teacher) for a thoughtful explanation:

consider the source of the "report" you're referring to. the author is formerly known for his Swift Boat work and for being "Rush Limbaugh's Man in Washington":

several thousand scientists do believe the climate's in trouble, including the National Academy of Sciences (over 2,000 members, hundreds of which have won Nobel prizes), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which nearly every "prominent" scientist in the US is probably affiliated with) and, in fact, a few dozen other international bodies.

none of those bodies are partisan--in fact, if anything, they're conservative by nature and made up of the geekiest and most renowned scientists on the planet.

lastly--you might be willing to gamble that it's all some sort of hoax, or gimmick, but i'm not. if you're right, we're okay. but if you're wrong--we're dead. roll the dice.

Ecohuman, I've been a member of respected national organizations, like the A.I.A. and most times on national positions, even regional or state positions, the organization has not even bothered to take an inclusive vote on issues. Usually boards, committees, select committees, blue ribbon committees take positions representing 20,000 members. I've even witnessed committees of two people writing a position paper representing 600 members.

There is also the factor that even if there may be a general vote, the formal position will not reflect the numerous, variable positions that each member may have on an issue, but they will vote for the one position that comes close, but maybe not even close to the realm of their beliefs.

Perfect echoman. You didn't even look at the video, the science, the substance or the Senate report.

Had you done so instead of the comedy act you posted you would know the source to be the same extensive science used by the IPCC but without the corrupted modeling and cherry picked graphs.

You would also know that hundreds of the groups you mentioned are abaondoning the GW ship. Many did so long ago or were never on board to begin with.
That's why the IPCC report, GW and the consensus you sight can now be called the massive fraud it is.
A fraud which you cannot escape by invoking the "what-if-they're-right" card.

I watched the teacher a while back and again now.
The fraud that cannot be reinvigorated by name changes to "climate destabilizing" and "risk management" as your confused teacher attempted.

What he and you are avoiding is the magnitude of distortions made by the IPCC and others chamioning the global warming pandamonium.
You teacher offered nothing of substance while clinging desperately to some of the more nonsensical distortions coming the the fraud.
His attempt to be clever was a thin mascarade of the routine ploys we hear all the time. He ignores the opposing science and calls into question and minimizes who is providing it as if they have nothing worth looking at.

In stark contrast if you looked at the scientist, the science and the sources in the 4 part youtube above you would have to know the absolutely credible susbstance lies there and not with the clever games provided by the teacher. As he provided nothing at all.

The one part where he comes clean with the real agenda is the wiping away of many other enviro efforst and replaced them all with Global Warming.
Which is exactly what this is all about.

Every echo/enviro green and sustainable fantasizer has hitched their favorite gig to Global Warming. GW, made up or not, makes urgent nearly all the policies they ever wanted.
Therefore it must be real, we have a consensus, and even if it is a fraud, we can't risk it.
What a set up.
There's not a critical and honest thinker who can genuinely look at what growing group of the scientists are providing and not recognize the blatant abuse of science ushering along the Global Warming agenda.
It is stunning.
And in the face of exposing the fraud we are now hearing we still can't take the risk?
It's a proposterous situation where it is quite possible we are in a natural cooling trend and the GW agenda is demanding we curb our global warming influences.
We don't have the science to show humans are effecting the climate, but I can just as easily say their GW agenda is not worth the risk of plunging our globe into the next ice age.
So tit for tat to your teacher.

Go watch the 4 part you tube above and come back dispelling any of torpedoes backed up with the very sources and graphs you trust.

Ecohuman, I've been a member of respected national organizations, like the A.I.A.

Lee, the AIA is not the National Academy of Sciences or the AAAS, and is not international. if you're not aware, their position on climate change is not a "compromise", it's clear, unequivocal, and put down in writing with a strong call to immediate action.

There's not a critical and honest thinker who can genuinely look at what growing group of the scientists

Marla, it's clear you're not willing to consider the opinion of a growing group of several thousand scientists.

what's stunning to me is that you're willing to disregard those opinions, and instead forcefully dismiss anybody, even Nobel prize winning scientists who disagree with the guy whose started a blog with the explicit goal of "debunking global warming." and, that you're willing to dismiss all of it as a "comedy act".

You would also know that hundreds of the groups you mentioned are abaondoning the GW ship.

you're entirely wrong. both groups I mentioned (and too many others to document in a blog post) are doing the opposite--they're making louder and more urgent calls to act on damage being done to the climate and human health.

and i *did* watch your videos. scientists have opposing viewpoints--that's how science works. i'm glad it's being discussed.

again: if you're wrong, and the climate's being irreversibly damaged, what happens then?

in other words, are you seriously telling me you're willing to disregard any opinion that says we're in trouble, take no action, and risk being wrong on a life or death, planetary issue? your previous post seems to clearly say "yes, i am."

Ye Gods, how I hope the various doomsday cults that embrace the ever-adaptable religion of "Climate Change" are correct, to an extreme, and severe depopulation of our species occurs sometime soon. I mean, really, do you people actually wish to seriously contemplate the greatest environmental threat of all ?

What a lesson to future generations it will be, that the very science responsible for the attempted negation of Nature's own population control systems comes right back to bite us on the rear end.

Billions of people are making baby after baby that they can never hope to feed right now, because their imaginary Gods, cultural brainwashing, and disgusting ignorance compel them to eschew birth control. Religious racketeers who would honestly be best described as pimps feed on the whole sick charade like an army of obese ticks.

All the while, the human race itself devolves right before our very eyes as a result of both thorough and selectively applied Dysgenics.

Cui Bono ?

I have fully considered the concenus and all it involves.
It is you who is not even looking at a growing group of scientists who have exposed the concensus for the fraud it truly is.
I am not ignoring anything while you're disregarding any and all evolving sceince which counters and dispells the concensus.

Regardles of the topic that is a fools errand.
Thsi isn't even complicated when you actually look at the centerpieces of the concensus claims and how they don't even align with their own science.
That's why it's important to look at the 4 part your tube and other experts who detail, with easy to understand clarity, exactly how manipulated and distorted the the concensus case is.
It doesn't take force to comprehend the reality of this fraud. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
Forget the labels and people and look only at the science, the measurements and graphs which both sides uses.
One side uses the entire set of facts and graphs while the concensus side corrupts all of it by excerpting out portions which dislay a trend that supports their extraordirily faulty modeling.
It's almost child like as they play with the science, claim it to be of the highest reliability then ignore all of it's inaccuracies while delcaring their is no debate.
It is not I, or others readers, who judges and dismisses all of it as a fraud or "comedy act".
It is the hard core science itself.
With the full annalysis showing the climate variations for what they really are thewre is no excuse for anyone blindly following the concensus any longer.
There are indeed hundreds of the scientists and many groups who have or are abaondoning the GW ship.
Just as you will once you get a grip and apply any intellectually honest read and very basic critical thinking.
Pick any of the main points and graphs from the 4 part you tube and allow you self to recognize they are the rest of and real story.
The "louder and more urgent calls to act on damage being done to the climate and human health" is no more than hysteria over the entire case being exposed as the fraud it is.
After all the concensus can't be allowed to be wrong now can it.
Forget the scientists and "opposing viewpoints". That only allows you to take as gospel the concensus and dismiss as opinion the contradictions.
Look only at the science, measurements, graphs, patterns and trends. THOSE ARE NOT OPINIONS.
They are how science works.

Your fallback position of
"if you're wrong, and the climate's being irreversibly damaged, what happens then?"

Is like someone long ago asking a captain who is about to set sail past the horrizon,
"What if you're wrong and you fall off the edge of the world? What happens then?"

I am telling you that had the concensus sceince held up in any way shape or form I would be right there with you.
It has not and is as phony as it gets.

Not unlike our local loonies who preach on the need to expand transit as it will soon be the only way for people to get around and feed themselves.

Gee why would I dismiss them and risk all of us starving?
You see how easy it is to create doomsday fanatsies to valdiate an agenda?

It doesn't take force to comprehend the reality of this fraud.

It has not and is as phony as it gets.

It's almost child like as they play with the science

It is not I, or others readers, who judges and dismisses all of it as a fraud or "comedy act".
It is the hard core science itself.

ah. climate change is a phony fraud, perpetuated by hysterical children playing with science, creating comedy acts that "hard core" science exposes.

now i get it. what was i thinking? for that matter, what the heck are those phony fraud scientists in the National Academy of Sciences and Union of Concerned Scientists thinking? kids these days.

...Is like someone long ago asking a captain who is about to set sail past the horrizon,
"What if you're wrong and you fall off the edge of the world? What happens then?"

sail on, Marla.

There you go again with your fingers in your ears, eyes wide shut and chanting.

Whatever you do don't actually study the difference in the concensus graphs and the real graphs.
It may break your heart.


You can stop wasting your breath with ecohuman. You will never change his mind.

I will admit to having a brief online discussion with eco and he was very polite and respectful, a pleasant change from most I encounter, but his name tag says all you need to know.

This is what defines him in the blogesphere and if you disagree with him, you are therefor wrong. Nothing short of icebergs off the Oregon coast or the Columbia river freezing over will ever change his mind.

He very well might be right on the subject, but his unwillingness to have an open mind and examine the data is what makes him and those like him so dangerous.

Ecohuman, please don't take this as a personal attack. I have used this very posting in many other blogs concerning many other topics. I am just trying to make a point.

It may break your heart.

being wrong about climate change would do the opposite--it would make me happy.

Ecohuman, please don't take this as a personal attack.

Mike, there's no other possible way to take it.

but i'm curious: why, exactly, are you more interested in discussing me, instead of the topic at hand?

You should then be happy someone put together a science by science comparison which makes clear you are wrong.
There's no other way to comprehend the the full science when compared to the GW corrupted version.

Yet you haven't commented on any of the content in the 4 part you tube?

Why is that? Are you afraid of being happy?

Yet you haven't commented on any of the content in the 4 part you tube?

you mean, like avoiding comment on:

1) the conclusions of 11,000+ signatories of the Union of Concerned Scientists and their call to action?

2) the conclusions of the 2,000 plus members of the National Academy of Sciences, over 200 Nobel Prize winnres among them, and their urgent call to action?

3) the conclusions of the thousands of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and their call to action?

i did comment on them, Marla--i presented you with counterfactual evidence, listed above. the number of "hard core" scientists loudly calling for action vastly outnumber those who say "it's not true."

you've yet to comment on what happens if you are wrong and climate change is destroying things, and the widely condemned political agenda of the author you quoted.

why is that? are you afraid of being sad? or are you waiting for 100% certainty before taking action?

the difference of opinion we have isn't whether or not climate change can be proven--it's what action to take with the facts we have.

you say "take no action, thousands of scientists are wrong, fraudulent, phony, etc."

i say "take action with less than 100% certainty, because being wrong could cost us the planet".

Who knows firsthand whether GW is real, real and anthropogenic, or not real. To believe that the subject is not politically supercharged is to be naive. That said, the "scientific" evidence must be weighed without preconceptions; so one looks at which scientist says what, what those scientists qualifications are, what their biases are (if discernable) and one decides what to believe.

It's not that the scientific "establishment" is infallible nor is there even agreement on who comprises the scientific "establishment". It's also not the case that scientists are, by definition, immune from the pressures of politics, public opinion, etc. It's ultimately up to us to assess, as dispassionately as we're able, the available information and decide. Action or inaction on this subject could have serious consequences.

It is dangerous and foolish to make up one's mind about GW at this stage of the game. It is disingenuous and opportunistic to presume to scold or castigate others over their doubts about the highly publicized predictions, causes and remedies.

The jury's still out and, given the potential impact, any attempt to close the discussion at this point is, IMO, unwise. For GW "supporters" this is akin to "quitting while they're ahead" in the popular media.

Even if GW is occurring, the notion that humans appreciably contributed to it, or can reduce it without catastrophic societal disruption raises issues that do not exist solely in the scientific realm. These must be thoroughly explored and decisions made based on ALL the consequences of proposed action.

There are "true believers" in any religion, and their tactics and and zeal have been adopted by many on both sides of this issue. Some of the same folks who decry these tactics on the part of, oh, say, fundamentalist Christians, are employing the same ones here.

GW apostles need to consider how much of their fervor derives from the coincidence of their "remedies" for GW with their previously held socio-political views.

Deniers need to take their fingers out of their ears and listen.

Let's get this right, shall we?

Action or inaction on this subject could have serious consequences.

i agree. doing nothing or doing something could both have consequences.

It is dangerous and foolish to make up one's mind about GW at this stage of the game.

given the stakes, is it more dangerous to do nothing?

There are "true believers" in any religion
i believe calling it a "religion" is trite and dismissive, framing the subject as one of faith between extremists. it's not.

and again, scientists are well beyond the label "global warming." the "warming" is only one part of the discussion.


2 questions:

#1 What do the scientists who support the concept of global warming stand to gain from universal acceptance of the notion?

#2 For sake of argument, suppose GW is real and not a normally occurring weather pattern, what can be done to mitigate the problem and at what cost? What are the consequences of the proposed "solutions?"

#1 What do the scientists who support the concept of global warming stand to gain from universal acceptance of the notion?

a planet to live on. those organizations i list are not political, and are international in scope (even the AAAS). they're conservative and don't make pronoucements lightly--otherwise, they wouldn't be scientists.

#2 For sake of argument, suppose GW is real and not a normally occurring weather pattern, what can be done to mitigate the problem and at what cost? What are the consequences of the proposed "solutions?"

hundreds of things. radically cut emissions is top of the list--buildings, planes/automobiles, manufacturing, power plants.

cost of acting? economic difficulty. changes in lifestyle and economies.

cost of not acting? potential global irreversible destruction and end of the species over time.

So no one is going to offer the scientist billions of dollars in research grants to try and come up with the best solutions to try and solve this GW mess?

You still haven't commented on any of the content in the 4 part you tube.
Content that includes the same specific science the IPCC and AAAS uses.

Your chanting about the concensus isn't doing so.

It aint the "Deniers" who need to "take their fingers out of their ears and listen."
It's the ecohumans who chanting.

Many if not most "Deniers" were once concerned about GW. Although many were also skeptics.
But discovering, through honest and more recent science, that there is no unusual or rapid warming occuring and that humans are not causing any has them recognizing the fraud you blindly support.

Over 11,000 Prominent Scientists (including Nobel Prize winners) claim man made global climate change is real

Also interesting:

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other national science academies today in calling on world leaders, particularly those of the G8 countries meeting next month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to prepare for its consequences":

other than the Bush Administration's cherry-picked handful of "skeptics", what else you got, Marla?

because from over here, it looks like a massive, worldwide call to action by thousands of prominent scientists who practice hard core, honest and real science.

Marla, i'll leave you with this, because you're refusing to provide any commentary other than "watch Professor Bob's Youtube videos":

which scientists do you believe, and what are you going to do about your choice?

Your echo chamber is getting old.
What else do you got?

I don't need any cherry picked Bush Administration's "skeptics" and haven't offered any.

Your reluctance to view and comment on the substance of the 4 part video above says it all. In that video presentation is not just a clear debunking but the magnitude of the debunking is stunning.
And on the centerpieces of the concensus.

Your deliberate avoidance and echo
chamber approach makes you hopeless.

If you want to fantasize that there is not any prominent scientists who practice hard core, honest and real science and also contradict your concensus fraud, well big surprise. There's plenty of company for you.

Because you're refusing to comment on any of the content in Professor Bob's Youtube videos, and you further pretend that Bob is alone and that the web isn't full of scientists and science doing the same, all you have is the same elementary chants everyone has heard over and over again.
You have demonstrated no interest in any science beyond the pre-IPCC manipulations and flawed modeling.
With you it is all about "which scientists do you believe" with no ability to digest on your own the science itself. That makes you a zombie.

And one does not have to be a scientist to grasp fully the IPCC fraud as Bob clearly reveals.

It is your choice to pretend that only concensus scientists can and should be viewing the full measurements and graphs they have so misused.

A misuse which any person can recognize and comprehend.


i'm sad to hear you've made up your mind to take no action.

i'm also sad that you're willing to dismiss the hard core science of thousands of scientists as "fraud".

surely, the 400 you refer to are the real scientists, and the ones i refer to are "frauds." why they'd attempt to massively defraud the world, i'll never know.

good luck, and good night. i leave the last word to you.

OK here's a good last word,or two.

You have avoided veiwing the and commenting on the graphs and science in the video.
The video compares the concensus' graph use and the whole graphs. Anyone can see the difference.
What they show is as plain as the nose on your face.
The concensus has falsly taken portions of graphs and drawn conclusions and trends which don't appear on the full graphs.
Is that too much for you to comprehend?
Conveniently so it appears.

While your annointed concensus makers are spreading imaginary science and hysteria our real world is producing the deepest December snow on record.
You better call google your concensus scientists again so you know what to say next.

Global Warming= deepest December snow on record.

90-plus inches of snow set record for Sliverton
By Scott Willoughby
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 12/10/2007 11:38:44 PM MST

The powder was very deep at Silverton Mountain, after the ski resort received 90 inches this past week. (Photo courtesy of Silverton Mountain)
Silverton Mountain was the big winner in what's shaping up as a "December to Remember" in Colorado ski country. The San Juan Mountain ski area received more than 90 inches of snow last week, qualifying as the second- largest storm in Silverton Mountain's history and contributing to the deepest December snow on record. According to ski area officials, the only larger storm to hit Silverton Mountain was during the winter of 2005, when 117 inches of snow fell during a 13-day storm cycle.
Still, the current 110-inch snow base at the upper mountain is unprecedented for the month of December, prompting a veritable huck-fest among big mountain riders on the "experts only" terrain. The area typically doesn't see a 100-inch base until February, and early opportunists are making the most of the anomaly by jumping 30-foot cliffs and skiing steep, 50-degree chutes that typically remain unskiable until late in the season.
The area is currently open only on weekends for unguided skiing during the month of December, although the dates are subject to change ( The mountain will be open Thursday through Sunday beginning Jan. 3. Guided skiing for up to 80 people per day begins Jan. 17.
Other areas also scored big in last week's storm cycle, including Crested Butte Mountain Resort, where skiing remains free through Saturday. More than 6 feet of snow fell in seven days last week. Monarch Mountain picked up 72 inches of snow. Wolf Creek accumulated 53 inches and a 100-inch base.
#20 Henry on 2007-12-22 18:11 (Reply)


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run in 2017: 113
In 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics