Extreme Cold in Oregon

This week an Arctic blast brought record low temperatures to much of Oregon. Steve Pierce has written two excellent summaries; they appear below.

Steve Pierce
Northwest Weather Consultants (NWC)  

Historic Cold Last Night Across Pacific Northwest
Portland, Oregon (Sunday, December 8th 2013) – “Historic December cold descended upon parts of the Pacific Northwest early Sunday morning, as the mercury dipped to as low as -41 degrees below zero in Oregon. Under a thick blanket of snow, several locations set new records. At Lakeview, Oregon the mercury dropped to -27 degrees below zero, setting a new all-time record for that location. The previous record was -22 degrees below zero set back in February of 1933 and again in January of 1937. Perhaps even more impressive was on the west side of the Cascade mountains where Eugene, Oregon fell to -10 degrees below zero Sunday morning. Ironically, this is not an all-time record for Eugene. As luck would have it, Eugene’s all-time record low is -12 degrees below zero was set on this very day back in 1972, making today the second coldest day in Eugene modern day history. Records date back more than 123 years (to 1890) in Eugene. Other daily records were also set in Vancouver, Washington and many other stations. Here are some of the Sunday morning low temperatures for selected cities;
Burns, Oregon = -30 degrees below zero
Lakeview, Oregon = -27 degrees below zero (NEW ALL-TIME RECORD)
Redmond, Oregon = -27 degrees below zero
Eugene, Oregon = -10 degrees below zero. This was Eugene’s second coldest low on record (since 1890). All-time record low is -12 degrees.
Salem, Oregon = 8 degrees
Vancouver, Washington = 9 degrees (new record for the day)
Portland, Oregon (International Airport) = 12 degrees
Astoria, Oregon (along the coast) = 13 degrees
Equally impressive was the fact that out of nearly 750 stations reporting across Oregon this morning, more than 400 of them fell below zero last night. Here is a list of all Mesowest reporting stations across Oregon that reached -20 degrees below zero or colder last night —


Historic Eugene Cold Weather Continues
Portland, Oregon (Monday, December 9th 2013) – “Residents of Eugene, Oregon continue to shiver for a fifth day in a row as the arctic deep freeze continues. Overnight low temperatures in Eugene dipped below zero for a third day in a row Monday. This marks the first sub-zero low temperature at Eugene in more than 40 years (1972) when five nights in a row dipped below zero. When looking at Eugene only, the current cold spells average temperature surpasses some of the most significant cold spells in Pacific Northwest history including January 1950, February 1989 and December 1990. The current cold spell now ranks 2nd coldest in Eugene history when looking at average Eugene temperatures, falling just shy of the arctic blast of December 1972. Eugene still has significant snow cover on the ground and low level arctic air trapped near the surface, which is keeping the home of the University of Oregon Ducks in the deep freeze. Eugene’s average temperature Sunday was a bone chilling -35 degrees below normal, which for energy providers equates to a “60” heating degree day measurement. This is a rare occurrence for any western Oregon location to achieve. Another issue that will face residents all across the Pacific Northwest will be broken water pipes once the temperature finally rises above 32 degrees and pipes begin to thaw and leak. This particular cold spell arrived early this year and falls in line with forecasters thoughts at October’s 21st Annual Winter Weather Forecast Conference hosted by the Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in Portland.”  
Here is a look at a complete history of Eugene days where overnight lows were below zero, sorted by date. The period of record is 1939-2013.
High Temp
Low Temp
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A climate of fear, cash and correctitude

Trashing real science to protect grants, prestige, and desire to control energy, economy, lives

Paul Driessen and Dennis Mitchell

Earth’s geological, archaeological and written histories are replete with climate changes: big and small, short and long, benign, beneficial, catastrophic and everything in between.

The Medieval Warm Period (950-1300 AD or CE) was a boon for agriculture, civilization and Viking settlers in Greenland. The Little Ice Age that followed (1300-1850) was calamitous, as were the Dust Bowl and the extended droughts that vanquished the Anasazi and Mayan cultures; cyclical droughts and floods in Africa, Asia and Australia; and periods of vicious hurricanes and tornadoes. Repeated Pleistocene Epoch ice ages covered much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-thick ice sheets that denuded continents, stunted plant growth, and dropped ocean levels 400 feet for thousands of years.

Modern environmentalism, coupled with fears first of global cooling and then of global warming, persuaded politicians to launch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its original goal was to assess possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. However, it wasn’t long before the Panel minimized, ignored and dismissed non-human factors to such a degree that its posture became the mantra that only humans are now affecting climate.

Over the last three decades, five IPCC “assessment reports,” dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused heavily on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for “dangerous” global warming, climate change, climate “disruption,” and almost every “extreme” weather or climate event. Tens of billions of dollars have supported these efforts, while only a few million have been devoted to analyses of all factors – natural and human – that affect and drive planetary climate change.

You would think researchers would welcome opportunities to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change – so that they can evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and help ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case.

In autumn 2013, Nebraska lawmakers budgeted $44,000 for a study of climate cycles and natural causes – avoiding additional speculation about manmade effects. Several Nebraska researchers rejected the idea, saying the budget was insufficient and they would not be interested unless human influences were made part of the study. They would not compromise their integrity or let politics dictate their research, they said. Ultimately, the project was cancelled in favor of yet another study of human influences.

Integrity is an important concern, especially when so many scientists have accepted far larger sums for research that emphasizes human causes, including some at Penn State, Virginia, George Mason and other institutions associated with the IPCC and EPA. Such grants have brought us “studies” connecting “dangerous manmade global warming” to dwindling frog populations, shrinking Italian pasta supplies, clownfish getting lost, cockroaches migrating, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions.

It is essential that some studies now begin to assess, understand and calibrate the powerful, complex, interrelated natural forces that drive climate fluctuations, cycles and changes. Only then will we be able to discern and separate significant human influences – and begin to predict why, when, how and where Earth’s climate is likely to change in the future. Even $44,000 would have enabled these accomplished Nebraska researchers to examine existing scientific papers and prepare a valuable report on natural factors that would help to put human influences in context. Only such comprehensive knowledge will enable us to predict, prepare for, mitigate and adapt to future climate variations with sufficient accuracy.

American taxpayers alone are providing billions of dollars annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA and other government agencies. The universities and other institutions routinely take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to derail that gravy train, and all fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles would imperil funding from sources that have ideological, political or crony corporatist reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy and related topics. Peer pressure, eco-activist harassment, politically correct posturing, and shared ideologies about fossil fuels, forced economic transformations and wealth redistribution via energy policies also play a major role, especially on campuses.

Racial and sexual diversity is applauded, encouraged, even required, on campuses, as is political diversity across the “entire” spectrum from communist to “progressive.” But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20×20-foot “free speech zones,” and would-be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized – as “climate skeptics” from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify. Robust debate about energy and climate issues is denounced and obstructed.

As The Right Climate Stuff team points out, we cannot possibly model or distinguish human influences on climate change, without first understanding and modeling natural factors. But solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces are dismissed in the corridors of alarmism. Even the adverse effects of climate change and renewable energy policies on jobs, economic growth, human health and welfare, and bird and bat populations receive little attention. Sadly, science has been subjected to such tyranny before.

When Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo found that science and observations did not support Ptolemy’s clever and complex model of the solar system, the totalitarian establishment of their day advised such heretics to recant – or be battered, banished or even burned at the stake. Today’s climate models are even more clever and complex, dependent on questionable assumptions and massaged data, unable to predict temperatures or climate events, and employed to justify costly energy and economic policies.

The modelers nevertheless continue to enjoy fame, fortune, power and academic glory – while those who question the garbage in-garbage out models are denounced and ostracized.

A particularly ugly example of junk science occurred in Stalin’s Soviet Union, where Trofim Lysenko rejected plant genetics and promoted the idea that traits were acquired by exposure to environmental influences. His delusions fit the regime’s utopian fantasies so well that a generation of scientists accepted them as fact, or at least said they did, so as to stay employed, and alive. Meanwhile, Lysenko’s crackpot ideas led to agricultural decline, crop failures, starvation, and finally the demise of the centrally planned Soviet economic system that perpetrated and perpetuated suffering for millions of people.

Skepticism and debate would have saved resources and lives. However, the Stalinist political machine would not tolerate dissent. Today’s scientific disease is less pernicious. However, politically driven science still frames critical public policies, because ideologically driven government has become the dominant financier of science. The disease has already crippled Europe’s industry and economy. It now threatens the vitality of the once powerful and innovative American system.

We’re all familiar with the Third World “democratic” process, where voters are “persuaded” by fear, fraud, deception, free meals and sham theatrics to give tin-pot dictators 97% of the “freely” cast votes.

Today we’re told 97% of climate scientists agree that the science is “settled” on climate change. This sham “consensus” is based on 75 of 77 scientists who were selected from a 2010 survey that went to 10,257 scientists. It ignores the 700 climate scientists, 31,000 American scientists and 48% of US meteorologists who say there is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change.

More important, science is not a popularity contest or a matter of votes. As Galileo and Einstein demonstrated, one scientist who is right, and can prove it with evidence, trumps hundreds who have nothing but models, old paradigms, scary headlines and government cash to support their hypotheses.

Few scientists would say the Dust Bowl was caused by humans, even though poor farming practices clearly exacerbated it. Few would say cancer research should be limited to manmade chemicals, even though they may be responsible for some cancers.

Nebraskan and other researchers should end their focus on human causes – and start working to understand all the complex, interrelated factors behind global climate changes and cycles. Government financiers and policy makers must do likewise. Our future well-being depends on it.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Dennis Mitchell, CPA/QEP, has been professionally involved in environmental and tax compliance, monitoring and education for 40 years and is an avid student of climate change.

Posted in Climate, Climate Change | 1 Comment

Winter Forecast 2013-14

Every year since the early 1990s I have made a forecast for the upcoming winter. This year I issued my forecast in September, and now, in mid-October, I am finally getting around to posting it. Sorry for the delay!!

As always, I create a composite forecast using data from past years which are similar to this year. Mostly I look at changes in the tropical Pacific. I look for years which have spring-summer Pacific conditions similar to the current year. Then I create a composite picture of the fall-winter-spring months for those similar “analog” years.

The main Pacific indicators I use are the Multivariate ENSO Index (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Using data through July, 2013, I identified 5 past years with similar distribution of these variables:

1970-71  1973-74  1975-76  1988-89  2007-08

Here is what I found:

1. Precipitation

Most indicators suggest a wetter-than-average winter. The map below shows precipitation anomalies by climate division for the lower 48, based on a composite of the analog years. Indicated are significant positive anomalies for the Northwest — that is, wetter than average conditions — for November through January.

precip anomaly 2013

Looking at cumulative precipitation for Salem (below), most of the analog years were near or above average, with 1973-74 particularly wet.




salem temps





2. Temperature

The nationwide temperature anomalies (below) suggest near-average temperatures for the Northwest. Salem temperatures in the analog years showed near-average winter temperatures but generally cool springs.

temp anomaly 2013

salem temperatures










3. Snowfall

Average temperatures and wetter than average precipitation would suggest abundant mountain snowfall, and that is exactly what the analog years showed. Below is a chart with cumulative snowfall at Government Camp, on the slopes of Mt. Hood at about 4,000 feet. Four of the five analog years saw significantly above-average snowfall.

govtcamp snow





4. Summary

Based on the indicators described above, I predict:

– A wetter than average winter

– Average temperatures

– Above average snowfall; a good year for skiers!!

George Taylor

October, 2013

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rainy, rainy September!

September was a record-breaking rain month in the Northwest. From Steve Pierce of the Oregon chapter of the American Meteorological Society:

Historic September Rainfall

Portland, Oregon (September 29th 2013)  “Heavy September rains are soaking the Pacific Northwest today as the remnants of typhoon Pabuk dumps its moisture on the region. This is a very significant and in some cases historical rainfall event for the month of September. The Portland International Airport has surpassed its wettest September on record with more than 4.38″ as of 12 noon PT. The previous September record was 4.30″ set back in 1986. The period of record is 1940-Current at the airport. An even more amazing stat is coming out of Astoria, Oregon today. Astoria is closing in on nearly 10″ of rainfall for the month, which shatters the old record. Records at Astoria date back to 1890, or more than 123 years! More than 5″ of Astoria’s total for the entire month of September has fallen since just Friday. Daily rainfall records were also set on Saturday at Vancouver, WA. Hillsboro, McMinnville, Troutdale, Redmond and Salem, Oregon. Winds have gusted to near hurricane force along the Oregon coast this weekend and power has been out at many locations. Storm drains are clogged, causing localized flooding.”
What’s up next? “A third and very potent September storm will cross the area today and tonight, bringing with it more heavy rain, strong coastal winds and more localized flooding. Trees are susceptible to coming down with the combination of wind, saturated soils and still having their leaves attached which adds more drag to the tree itself.  A very special thanks to the Portland office of the National Weather Service for their great stats. Here is the list of the latest Record Event Reports for Oregon as of 12 noon PT” —
Phone: 503-504-2075
1125 AM PDT SUN SEP 29 2013
   1. SEP 2013......... 9.70 INCHES AND COUNTING.
   2. SEP 1906......... 8.66 INCHES.
   3. SEP 1920......... 8.55 INCHES.
   4. SEP 1905......... 7.38 INCHES.
   1. SEP 28 2013...... 3.56 INCHES.
   2. SEP 16 1997...... 2.67 INCHES.
   3. SEP 30 1953...... 2.41 INCHES.
   4. SEP 13 1935...... 2.27 INCHES.
   1. SEP 28-29 2013... 5.16 INCHES AND COUNTING.
   2. SEP 27-28 2013... 4.55 INCHES.
   3. SEP 3-4 1913..... 3.46 INCHES.
   4. SEP 16-17 1997... 3.42 INCHES.
   1. SEP 27-29 2013... 6.15 INCHES AND COUNTING.
   2. SEP 2-4 1913..... 4.31 INCHES. 
   3. SEP 15-17 1997... 4.16 INCHES.

SXUS76 KPQR 291152
0452 AM PDT SUN SEP 29 2013
                 RECORD (INCHES)   RECORD (INCHES)  
ASTORIA OR          3.56         1.15 SET IN 1893
HILLSBORO OR        1.73         1.06 SET IN 1962
MCMINNVILLE OR      1.40         1.25 SET IN 1962
VANCOUVER WA        1.36         1.00 SET IN 1962
SALEM OR            1.33         0.94 SET IN 1962
PORTLAND AIRPORT    1.25         1.08 SET IN 2007
TROUTDALE OR        1.16         0.79 SET IN 1962

In Corvallis, the 7.06 total for the month was well above 
the previous record. The top ten Corvallis Septembers:

Corvallis (data to 1889):
YEAR    SEPT(in.)
2013    7.06
1920    5.40
1911    4.27
1941    3.96
1914    3.84
1969    3.62
1977    3.58
1986    3.56
1978    3.40
1997    3.39

Chris Daly of OSU's PRISM Climate Group produced a preliminary map 
of September precipitation nationwide:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Record-Setting Rain/Thunderstorm

Yesterday (Sept. 5) we experienced the most significant thunderstorm I have seen in the mid-Valley since moving here in 1989. Lots of thunder, for hours; cloud-to-ground lightning; and heavy rain occurred.

The total rainfall at Corvallis Hyslop weather station was 2.94 inches. This was the wettest September day in Corvallis’ history; weather records go back to 1889. The previous September record was 2.18 inches on 9/18/1969.

Wow! What a storm!!

24-hour rainfall amounts:

Cocorahs rainfall amounts for Benton and Marion Coounties:


Posted in Weather, Weather Matters | Leave a comment

Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge

Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor

by Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger via the GWPF

English: Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.

“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed “a civil heretic” in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.

“There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.

“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”

I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.

Full story

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

Environmental Protection Agency SealEnvironmental Protection Agency Seal

In the Washington Examiner today, there is this: Op-Ed: EPA’s carbon regs not based on sound science.

It is published by Joe D’Aleo on behalf of a number of people.  A longer more complete version of the essay is below, which could not be published for space reasons. Also included is a list of the 13 signers who drafted it.

EPA’s CO2 Regulations are NOT Based on Sound Science

The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.

If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)

Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE.

1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human- caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.



2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.

3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.

Bottom –Line: No scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving that higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels will lead to higher GAST–not EPA’s team and certainly not to the EPA’s 90-99% certainty. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating EPA’s Three LoE, then EPA’s claim that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods and droughts is also disproved. Such causality claims require a validated theory that higher CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s entire house of cards collapses.

More generally, EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding.

EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. {—} The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”

EPA’s outsourcing of the science to international organizations beyond the reach of U.S. laws has also been challenged. Moreover, the ClimateGate saga is testimony to the dedication of some to subvert the science for their own agenda. And, a Hockey Stick is now famous as a symbol of temperature data manipulated to generate public alarm.

In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order. However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. A Remand of EPA’s Endangerment Finding by the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate.

Opinion Piece Signer List (alphabetically)

Dr. Timothy Ball
Climatologist & Environmental Consultant
Ph.D. (Faculty of Science), University of London, England

Joseph S. D’Aleo
Chief Meteorologist
WeatherBell Analytics

Dr. Donald Easterbrook (Emeritus)
Professor of Geology
Western Washington University

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
La Center, WA

Dr. Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford

Dr. William M. Gray (Emeritus)
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
Professor of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Western Technology Inc.
Deer Park Maryland

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus)
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

George H. Taylor
Certified Consultant Meteorologist
President, Applied Climate Services

Dr. James P. Wallace III
President, & CEO, Jim Wallace & Associates LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Anthony Watts
Former TV Meteorologist and founder of
SurfaceStations.org, Intelliweather, WattsUpWithThat

Posted in Climate Change | 1 Comment