Comments on: Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee, Part I

By: Energy Double Speak « Right in The Rockies

Energy Double Speak « Right in The Rockies — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:03:22 +0000

[...] many of whom have a direct stake in seeing Green legislation and regulation. It’s detailed here at MTPolitics with a description here of the supposedly “objective” council: On first blush, it seems [...]

By: Big Sky Cairn » Blog Archive » The Governor (in)action

Big Sky Cairn » Blog Archive » The Governor (in)action — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:29:06 +0000

[...] state that will not pack DEQ with environmental fundamentalists. The best example here was what Craig laid out on the Climate Change Advisory [...]

By: mtpolitics.net » Blog Archive » Montana Climate Change Commission, Part IV

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:50:03 +0000

[...] is part 4 of an ongoing series: Part I, Part II, Part [...]

By: Big Sky Cairn » Blog Archive » E-Newsletter: Issue 01

Big Sky Cairn » Blog Archive » E-Newsletter: Issue 01 — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:04:48 +0000

[...] Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee, Part I [...]

By: mtpolitics.net » Blog Archive » Montana Climate Change Advisory Group, Part III

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:34:29 +0000

[...] is part 3 of an ongoing series. Part one can be found here, part two is [...]

By: mtpolitics.net » Blog Archive » Blogs and Newspapers, The Next Step?

mtpolitics.net » Blog Archive » Blogs and Newspapers, The Next Step? — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:07:02 +0000

[...] I was recently rather critical of the media in general, and newspapers in particular, he brought up some points that I found worth [...]

By: Pete Talbot

Pete Talbot — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0000

I stand corrected. Further research indicates that Great Falls Commissioner Beltrone was the only commissioner to vote against a rezoning of agricultural land to allow the Highwood generating plant to be built. My apologies to Ms. Beltrone.

By: mtpolitics.net » Blog Archive » Montana Climate Change Commission, Part II

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:30:45 +0000

[...] This is part 2 of an ongoing series, you can find part 1 here. [...]

By: A Scientist

A Scientist — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:05:19 +0000

As a scientist with 30 years of experience I can assure you that a consensus of scientists does support the AGW hypthesis.

As a scientist with 30 years of experience I can also tell you that science is not about consensus.

This especially true when we consider “climate science”, which is a relatively new discipline largely driven by computer modeling.

None of models so far constructed does a very good job of predicting more than a few years forward. They are after all based on weather models from the 1970’s. Remember how good those worked. Heck think how good the more recent ones work more than 5 days forward.

The AGW hypothesis has yet to be proven. Warming stopped 10 years ago and ocean temperatures haven’t gone up since we started accurately measuring them 5 years ago.

None of the models can explain why we are seeing cooling now.

While this doesn’t dis-prove AGW, it doesn’t very good that two of the big measures that would support the hypothesis are going in the opposite direction from where its proponents (Gore, Hansen, Trebenth, etc) say it should.

Oh, and to top it all off CO2 is being emitted faster today than 10 years ago. The models say this should accelerate warming – not slow or reverse it.

By: Pete Talbot

Pete Talbot — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:09:24 +0000

I could be wrong, but I think Great Falls Commissioner Beltrone was a supporter of the coal-fired generating plant that was planned for the G.F. area, so she might be in the same camp as the power industry guys.