Those who most fervently support the climate paradigm and all the “solutions” that purport to fix “the problem” generally know the least about it. That is hardly surprising, because there is no problem in the first place. Yet the brainwashed inevitably believe that the vast majority of scientists support the concept of a climate catastrophe, even if they do not. That presumed “consensus” alone sustains the faithful.
One the most fervent believers is Bill Bradbury, a former Oregon Secretary of State, who was personally trained by Al Gore. As his devoted disciple, Bradbury went all over Oregon preaching climate catastrophe, even into our public schools. Never mind that Bradbury failed to graduate from college, despite attending the University of Chicago High School for gifted children. Virtually all of us who attended this school went on to professional careers. Bradbury instead migrated into Democratic Party politics in Oregon where education is clearly optional and probably deemed detrimental.
Happily, those who replaced Bradbury on the Oregon lecture circuit (Angus Duncan and Kathie Dello) have college degrees and titles that seem appropriate to this subject. Duncan is Chairman of the Oregon Global Warming Commission and President of the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, while Dello is Associate Director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and Deputy Director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.
We should be impressed by their titles, at least until we hear them talk about “Global Warming” and their proposed solutions. Their presentations are more rudimentary than those from Bradbury.
At a recent event sponsored by the City Club at Portland Public Library, Dello laid out the thesis that our planet has warmed since the 19th century, which is true. Then she hurried over the crucial issue of what caused the warming by boasting that “we can now attribute some regional [climate] trends to human activity.” If we consult the “Third Oregon Climate Assessment Report” that she was discussing, it asserts that “Burning fossil fuels to run our factories, heat our homes, and drive our cars, produces heat-trapping gases that unequivocally warm the planet.” That, of course, merely restates their thesis and completely fails to provide any scientific evidence to back it up. People with a knowledge of physics should cringe at the thought of “heat-trapping gases.” Heat is never “trapped,” only slowed as it departs.
We are however invited to believe that they have “strengthening evidence that Oregon is already experiencing the effects of climate change.” Dello pointed out their often-repeated claim of a “declining snowpack” by referencing “the 2015 snow drought that foreshadows mid-century normal conditions.” When she briefly snickered about the much different winter conditions we just experienced, the audience should have realized that last winter could as easily have been an indication of winters to come. That is probably why Dello quickly moved from anecdotal “evidence” to computer predictions of a dire future.
Angus Duncan then saved the day with his simple solutions: closing coal-fired power plants, making do with less energy, riding bicycles, and building more windmills. He even boasted of working with our local power companies to redesign the electric power grid. With his knowledge of power system details, he sounds authoritative. But Duncan is careful never to claim he is an engineer, because that could get him sanctioned and fined. Although Oregon supports nearly total freedom of speech, it is illegal to claim that you are an engineer unless you are a registered professional engineer. Even those who have degrees in engineering cannot claim to be engineers, if not licensed by Oregon. Of course, Duncan has no technical training in engineering or science and therefore no hope of a license.
With progressive ideas, Duncan believes the Northwest can lead the world to the promised land of cheap plentiful power produced without burning any carbon! WOW! Who would have guessed it could be that easy? All that is necessary is to wish hard enough and vote for enlightened Democrats The only dark cloud he saw was (can you guess?) Donald Trump. Although he was polite enough to acknowledge that Trump is indeed our new President, he suggested ignoring him!
The heart of Duncan’s presentation was the claim that we have been hearing for close to ten years now. “Wind and solar power are almost as cheap as conventional sources.” That must have sounded very good indeed to his audience that is surely suffering from high electric bills. But is it true? Of course not! The rush to renewables has been steadily driving up electric rates, because of high capital costs, low utilization rates due to intermittent wind and sunshine, high maintenance costs, short life expectancy, and higher costs from conventional power plants forced into backup roles. When we have to construct more generating capacity to make up for the substantial indeterminacy of renewables, costs go up dramatically. Basically, one conventional power plant is necessary to back up one large wind farm. That doubles costs.
Hence, the boast from Duncan that renewables are comparable in cost to conventional sources of electric power fails to mention that the quality of renewable power is so poor that it needs 100% backup. That says that wind and solar have no societal benefit, even if one is concerned about carbon emissions. Real engineers understand this. Pretend engineers do not.
For some reason the words of Macbeth keep running through my head: “it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Perhaps the “Question and Answer” period would provide some relief from the mindless drivel? When I asked Dello about the three times more rapid warm up in the Pacific Northwest from 1910 to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s compared with the recent three decade warm up, she knew that 1934 and 2015 reached almost identical temperatures in the thermometer record. But she ignored the fact that the earlier and more dramatic warm up occurred before man-made CO2 was significant. She also ignored the fact that Oregon State University predictions for present warming are trending a factor of ten above today’s reality. Why should reality interfere with a good story?
At a previous appearance in the Portland area, Dello was asked if there was anything that could cause her to doubt climate hysteria. Her response was honest but stunningly unprofessional: “I will carry it to my grave.”
Duncan had one answer to all questions: “renewables.” On our way out of the room, I asked if he approved of the United States selling coal to China to replace what they were now refusing from North Korea. That is part of an effort to avert a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula. He answered without hesitation, “No!”
When we encounter people who live in such a stark make-believe world where they are sure they are 100 percent correct, we should remember this wisdom from “an old Jew of Galicia:”
“When someone is honestly 55 percent right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60 percent right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God.
But what’s to be said about 75 percent right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100 percent right? Whoever says he’s 100 percent right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.”
Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research and has no conflicts of interest on this subject.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Northwest Connection.)
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel