A Convenient Half-Truth

Permalink +

Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 11:14 am  //  g.h.kirsch

A prophet who would sell his own land
What do you know, and what do you take on faith? Who do you trust, and should you trust them? Do you believe that failing to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere will have catastrophic environmental consequences?

Faced with uncertain threats on the one hand, and certain dire consequences on the other, what is the way to go?

The argument to cap CO2 emissions and trade the rights to its emission is:The globe is warming, driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

This is at best a half truth, and very likely all wrong and intentionally misleading. If increasing levels of CO2 are in fact benign, or are not the result of human activity, there need be some very compelling reason to risk the human and economic consequences of cap and trade; or consider surrendering to some international regime.

These are not matters to be left to faith.

Changes in the climate have occurred from time immemorial. CO2 levels today are unremarkable in historical context. Not only have we survived in warmer climates, we have prospered. And these were pre-industrial times where heightened levels of CO2 could not be attributed to human actions. They occurred naturally.

Once there were vineyards in northern Europe. And the Vikings were quite able to bury their dead in the rich soils of Greenland without ice picks. They weren't idiots. They didn't call it Greenland because they found it buried under snow and ice.

If CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been substantially higher and lower in other epochs, why do we believe that present or anticipated levels are principally driven by relatively recent human activity?

Notwithstanding the constantly misrepresented claim that scientific consensus exists, and human activity is causing unprecedented and potentially catastrophic climate change, there is, in fact, a growing consensus that we are being sold a bill of goods.

One of the more noteworthy skeptics is Freeman Dyson, who has long resided at the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. During his lifetime there, he has worked alongside most of the great scientific figures of the age, including Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, Fermi, Bethe, Teller, and Oppenheimer. He is considered one of the best scientific minds we have.

Dyson has concluded, “Al Gore’s just an opportunist. The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers.”

Hansen is the discredited NASA scientist who was part of the early Enron team assembled to create the scientific rationale for limiting CO2 emissions.

Dyson says Hansen “exploits” the toxic elements of burning coal, which can be easily reduced, as a way of condemning the carbon dioxide it releases, “which cannot be reduced at an affordable cost, but does not do any substantial harm.”

To Dyson, “the move of the populations of China and India from poverty to middle-class prosperity should be the great historic achievement of the century. Without coal it cannot happen.” Dyson sees coal as the interim kindling of progress as solar sources develop and become practical.

Other third world peoples await the benefits of the same progress.

The argument from global warming was originally compelling to laymen because there was both evidence of warming and evidence of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. The proposition that they were linked seemed plausible to unscientific minds. The argument that the latter caused the former was taken on faith.

But now, more than ten years on, the foundation of the argument is undermined by the obvious cooling taking place. This cooling, inspite of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, points to the real driving force behind global warming and increased atmospheric CO2, the sun.

The best available science suggests that warming oceans and a warming atmosphere are more likely responsible for increased releases of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a consequence, not a cause of global warming.

Correlation of sun spot activity, or lack of the same, better explains the warming and cooling trends throughout history. And increases and declines in atmospheric CO2 trail, rather than lead, temperature.

Just as the rooster's crowing before the sun's rise does not give us light, CO2 in the atmosphere does not give us warmth.

Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, including the minuscule portion attributable to human activity. But he suggests, the rising CO2 may well ultimately be a benign occurrence in what is still “a relatively cool period in the earth’s history.” The warming, he says, is not global but local, “making cold places warmer, rather than making hot places hotter.”

Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be beneficial, a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields.

“Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now, and substantially richer in carbon dioxide." says Dyson, "A year ago when we went to Greenland, where warming is the strongest, the people loved it.”

Dyson's view is supported by paleoclimatologist, Professor Tim Patterson. "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over the [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

Skeptics of the anthropogenic causation argument are routinely denigrated as lackeys of big oil, coal or the Chamber of Commerce. After a lifetime of scientific contributions, Freeman Dyson has been labeled a pompous twit, a blow-hard, and a cesspool of misinformation. The proponents of cap and trade characterize him as “an old coot riding into the sunset.”

The proponents of the anthropogenic argument, and cap and trade, are hardly scrutinized for connections to the self interested. Indeed, they are showered with contributions and Oscars. Nonetheless, the skeptics, though lacking a similar propaganda apparatus, have cast more than reasonable doubt on the argument.

If nearly all the carbon dioxide increase is unrelated to human activity, and is a result of the sun warming the oceans and the atmosphere, why do they want to institute a global system to regulate anthropogenic emissions and trade the rights to emit.

The answer, in a nutshell, is to trade the rights to emit.

Getting that done has become the United Nations' highest priority. The first of three sessions to hammer out the actual deal is to take place today in Bonn.

If enacted, the "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," will be nothing short of world-changing. The Bonn meeting is the first step to ratification of what will be known as the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, to be adopted in the Danish city sometime before December.

The Obama administration supports the process. The administration has espoused "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation.

From a briefing paper to negotiators in Bonn, we are told cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries."

Cap-and-trade functions by decreasing the level of CO2 emissions outright permitted, which will make permits to exceed the more restricted levels, to be traded by industrial users, increasingly more valuable, and expensive.

A paper by British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, declares that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by "at least 80% by 2050," while the biggest economies, like the U.S.'s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent. According to Stern, to meet the 2050 goals, "most of the world's electricity production will need to have been de-carbonized."

The U.S. Department Of Energy estimates roughly 72 percent of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels, with just 6 percent coming from hydro-power and less than 3 percent from non-nuclear renewable and "other" sources. And even then, those "other" non-fossil sources included wood and biomass which, when burned, are major emitters of CO2.

Just as Obama's administration fails to reform the private financial sector, and allows the continued transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the American aristocracy, they are similarly about to surrender our sovereignty and accept international regulation of our energy producing industries, including their taxation by private individuals and foreign nations with emission credits to provide. And as the international regime takes root, every American will find themselves taxed by a body they have no electoral recourse over.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Since shortly after this trading system was first conceived at Enron, it has been necessary to find another means, other than the Environmental Protection Act, to rationalize capping CO2 emissions because it isn't a pollutant.

This led to forwarding the argument that increased CO2 in the atmosphere caused, rather than resulted from, warming. That argument was buttressed by dubious computer models. With the passage of time, these models have failed to predict, explain or accommodate actual developments in nature.

After the demise of Enron and Ken Lay, Al Gore and some of America's leading financial schemers continued the effort to create a trading system, and a commodity whose trade would profit them.

When Henry Paulsen was still at Goldman Sachs, while helping devise a whole bag of tricks to bring down the world economy, he and Gore threw in with N.M. Rothschild and an array of international bankers to promote a trading system in emission exemptions and a cap on releases of anthropogenic CO2.

An important feature of the system envisioned is undeveloped and emerging economies that presently do not emit, who restrain themselves from emitting CO2 in the future, will be rewarded with credits. A substantial number of these countries are struggling under the weight of international loans they can not pay. The obvious solution will be for them to sell their rights to emit CO2, or exchange them with the international bankers for debt reduction or forgiveness.

As a result, these countries will be prevented from using their coal, oil and gas resources to improve the standard of living of their citizens. At the same time, the industrialized nations will pay the same international bankers to continue to emit. The additional cost demanded for the right to emit will be passed on to the citizens of developed countries.

If CO2 is an innocuous component of the atmosphere, or if the relatively insignificant contribution of CO2 from human sources isn't a substantial environmental threat, then the only beneficiaries of this new regime will be the holders and traders in the exemptions to emit.

Again, according to Freeman Dyson, “The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large, By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. I’m concerned about the Chinese. They’re changing their standard of living the most, going from poor to middle class. To me that’s very precious.”

Commenting on scenes from Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Dyson is ofended by the claim that, as an undergraduate, Gore was first alerted to how severe the climate’s problems would become by the late Roger Revelle, a Harvard scientist who instructed him.

Dyson retorts, “For most people I’d think this would be quite effective. But I knew Roger Revelle. He was definitely a skeptic. He’s not alive to defend himself.”

Gore apparently missed the lesson. The suggestion that climate change portended significant problems of adaptation is quite different from suggesting that humans were the cause of that anticipated change.

When Gore warns of the melting snows of Kilimanjaro, the vanishing glaciers of Peru and “off the charts” carbon levels in the air; projects his scenes of disappearing ice, drunken trees and drowning polar bears; he decries, “the so-called skeptics” who say this “seems perfectly O.K.,”

Dyson, by contrast, quietly points out, “Most of the time in history the Arctic has been free of ice.” He reassures, “the polar bears will be just fine.”

“He certainly is a good preacher,” Dyson concludes. “Forty years ago it was fashionable to worry about the coming ice age. Better to attack the real problems like the extinction of species and overfishing."

Like every prophet bent on creating a flock, faith must trump facts. Half truths must do. Sure CO2 levels have increased. It is not true that human activity has contributed substantially. And it's certainly debatable if more CO2 or a warmer climate is a bad thing.

The reason to convince the sheep otherwise is the better to shear them, my dear !

Dyson in his office, ever ready to explain even the inconvenient truth

Thanks to George Russell, executive editor of Fox News for information on the Copenhagen process and Nicholas Dawidoff, and The New York Times for remarks and quotes by Freeman Dyson

Larry Horowitz  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:43 am

Greg,

I agree that the creation of another central bank to print a fiat C02 currency is the last thing we need.  Aren?t we indebted enough?  And I understand that C02 itself is not a pollutant.  On the other hand, it is not intuitive to me that burning coal and fossil fuels does not somehow pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. 

Are emissions from our gas-burning automobiles not polluting our air, irrespective of whether these emissions add to global warming?  Surely burning coal and fossil fuels is not the cleanest way to produce energy.  Aside from the cap and trade sideshow, aren?t there real pollution issues at stake?


g.h. kirsch  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 10:57 am

Larry,

Yes, real pollution issues are at stake, and capping and trading CO2 emissions not only fails to affect them, and is a distraction from addressing them directly, there’s even a chance that trading will increase emissions.

The Sunday Times of London reported an Indian factory made more than $600 million selling emissions credits after investing just $3 million in equipment to reduce emissions.

With that windfall, it will build a new factory that will emit a refrigerator gas called HFC-143a, truly a greenhouse gas.

DuPont invites people to pay $4 per ton to reduce emissions from a Kentucky plant. The equipment that reduces the gases is actually relatively cheap.

By the Spring of 2007, DuPont had realized a return of around 900% on its investment for emissions reductions; and it’s still growing.

Even worse, though, is the potential for fraud. The Financial Times found that people buy credits for carbon reduction that do not exist.

Other companies sell the same credits several times over.

Carbon emission trading is excellent for the fraudster, good for the robber baron, ineffective for the environment, bad for the economy as a whole and disastrous for the poor.

No wonder Enron liked it.


Doug Karlberg  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 11:29 am

This is a giant tax hidden deceitfully in a environmental crisis. I understand the good in reducing pollution, but the attraction for politicians is the tax burden that is placed upon all citizens. The poor will bear a high burden from this hidden tax.

Politicians get their power from two places today. One, spending money. Two, obtaining money from their special interests. This disguised tax on fuel, is fuel for the growth of government.

There is a gathering tension between the political elite, the wealthy elite, and the people at the bottom of the totem pole bearing the load, of hard work every day.

Our Founding Father feared the concentration of power more than anything else. They understood its corrosive nature, and it power to destroy our Union.

They were correct, and at its core is high taxes, which in turn lead to more and more power residing with a few in Washington DC, and their special interests.

Politicians today take care of the wealthy and the wealthy take care of the politicans.

All too often academia and the media turn a blind eye.

The common citizen has lost their power over their government.

~


Larry Horowitz  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 1:44 pm

Greg, Thanks for clarifying.  I agree that the debate over Cap & Trade is a distraction.  I?m concerned that the debate over global warming may become one as well.  Those who oppose Cap & Trade, and who generally argue that CO2 emissions are not responsible for global warming, become unofficially aligned with polluters who argue against controlling CO2 and other polluting processes.  I understand that is not your intention.

It seems clear that the pollution we create as an industrial society is overwhelming our environment?s capacity to maintain itself.  Our planet?s situation is analogous to disease that overwhelms a body?s immune system.  The global warming debate needs to be about a diseased planet and its ramifications.  Certainly, extreme weather patterns are naturally occurring.  The question is: Are we creating even more extreme weather by polluting our planet?  Does the burning of coal and fossil fuels exacerbate this problem?  How else does pollution impact our planet?s life-sustaining properties?  What changes are needed?

I understand the importance of a healthy immune system, but I do not consider myself a health nut.  I also understand how critical it is not to overwhelm our planet?s capacity to preserve life; but I do not consider myself an environmental wacko.  It?s just common sense.  Why does everything need to be so complicated?


Ham Hayes  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 3:58 pm

Thanks for the info Greg. 

One factor that doesn’t seem to get a lot of press is population growth.  Clearly, this has to be one of the larger demand factors for energy consumption, pollution, etc.  According to the UN, we are currently adding a billion new souls every 12-13 years or so.  it is expected that the earth’s population may peak at 9 billion sometime around 2040.  Large population growth in the last century has been attributed to reduction in mortality due to reduction of disease based deaths and improvements in food supply (which also uses more energy for industrialized agriculture).

So industrialization, science and technology have given us more productivity, better health, more food and more folks who of course want a higher standard of living as well. Is this not the root cause of our energy, pollution and sustainability questions?

Perhaps we should have a people tax instead of a carbon tax. 

Over the top one might say…China has been doing this for years.  How effectively? Don’t know, but they have been doing it.


Larry Horowitz  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 4:59 pm

Ham,

I believe your point is a good one.  However, I?m not certain there?s a direct connection between population growth and standard of living provided by technology.  According to the researchers and authors of ?Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update?, the main source of population growth is the non-industrialized world; that is, those who have not fully shared in the benefits of science and technology.  Among the industrialized nations, population growth does not appear to be a major issue.  As you know, several nations are experiencing reductions in population.

The authors of ?Limits to Growth? agree that population growth is a major problem that must be addressed; however, they believe the answer lies in improving living conditions in the undeveloped world where there is currently a demand for large families just for survival and limited birth control is being practiced.  A people tax in the third world does not appear likely to solve this problem.

Unless we adopt solutions soon, our future is likely to consist of too many people making too many demands on an overburdened planet.  Not a pretty scenario.


g.h. kirsch  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 6:34 pm

God bless you all. 

But the point here is that between now and December 2009, cap & trade, an international regulatory system with deep implications, a tax on every one of that’s a threat greater than the banking crisis and a crushing imposition on the third world will become a fait accompli.

Some real communication needs to take place between citizens, who have largely been brainwashed, and our representatives.

The ratification of such a policy by the senate will be a disaster.


Larry Horowitz  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 6:52 pm

I agree, although have no idea how to accomplish that objective.  I do believe, however, that trying to discredit global warming or implying that burning coal and fossil fuels is OK won?t be a successful strategy.

There are many financial reasons to oppose cap & trade that are more than adequate to convince citizens to strongly oppose it.  Relating cap & trade to our current fiscal crisis seems to me a good way to go.  Fighting on the environmental front ?feels? to me like a non-starter and distracts from the real reasons cap & trade will be disastrous.  Admitting that burning coal and fossil fuels harms the environment (even if capping C02 is not the answer) will go a long way toward opening the hearts and minds of those who have already been brainwashed, IMHO.


Doug Karlberg  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 7:08 pm

China banned couples from having more than one child. The world cheered this Communist government’s directive, followed up with severe penalties for violations, which included widespread sterilization.

As a consequence of this government intervention into the sex lives of their citizens, female babies were either killed or shipped overseas for adoption.

The result is a whole bunch of children that are incredibly spoiled and overwhelmingly male.

As a consequence this generation of men, have no one to wed.

This is the brilliance of government leadership, and its failure at its finest.

I remember the world cheering the announcement of this policy. Be careful what we wish for.

The word government is seldom associated with success or effectiveness.

This China policy has turned into a “cap and trade” for children. There’s your answer, Ham.
~


g.h. kirsch  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 7:50 pm

The point Dyson is straining to make is though some emissions from burning fossil fuels, particularly coal, are pollutants, CO2 isn’t. 

He points out means exist to reduce and even eliminate the release of those pollutants.  CO2 is another matter, but not a significant threat.

It’s necessary to get people to understand that there isn’t a causative link between increased levels of CO2 and a warming climate.  A warming climate creates higher levels of CO2.

Indeed as CO2 has continued to rise in the atmosphere, since 1998 the climate has been cooling.  This directly contradicts the results Gore and Hansen’s models predicted.

It is important for people to accept that CO2 is not a serious problem for mankind.

You are correct, how we handle these fossil fuels must change. 

Not only must excessive consumption be curbed, but economies of scale must be realized so the mother in some third world country isn’t cooking on her floor with coal or charcoal.

Instead, if she had an electric stove and her village had electricity, and the coal or gas were ignited in some well managed facility that prevented the pollutants escaping, she would both be able to feed her children and protect them from breathing the pollutants in their very home.

I am not for pollution.  I am for a realistic solution that requires, even forces, the advanced economies to conserve. 

Not because of some alarmist theory about global warming, but to lower the cost to those who are not benefiting from a century’s advances.

Cap and trade is not that solution.  It will become an even bigger problem.


Ham Hayes  //  Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 11:59 pm

Karl,

Somewhat tongue in cheek.  Remember Jonathan Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal’?  Six billion people today, 9 billion in by 2040, more or less.  Rapidly rising expectations for economic well-being in the most populous and growing countries.  What a formula!

Government, even the draconian Chinese, have failed to solve the problem.  Market forces may be better at rationalizing the distribution of limited resources, but are perceived by many to be inhuman. If I felt that greed and power lust weren’t ruling the day, I might think we have a chance of coming up with some rational approaches.  But neither business nor government is instilling a lot of confidence right now, are they?

Who to turn to? Maybe Orwell was right after all, just a little off on the time frame.  And by and by, Mother Nature will probably be the one who has the final word. 

And I’m an optimist!


A Convenient Half-Truth

Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 11:14 am  //  g.h.kirsch

What do you know, and what do you take on faith? Who do you trust, and should you trust them? Do you believe that failing to reduce CO2…

11 comments; last on Mar 31, 2009

The Fallacy of the Obama Economic Policy

Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 12:06 am  //  Craig Mayberry

There are a couple of things that everyone should consider (especially elected officials) as we continue down the path of spending to get out of the recession. The…

2 comments; last on Mar 27, 2009

Johns Repair

Specializing in German vehicles...

Outa Sight & Outa Their Minds

Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 12:35 pm  //  g.h.kirsch

The good news for ordinary American taxpayers just keeps coming. Monday's formal announcement of Treasury Secretary Geithner's oft floated It-Ain't-Really-a-Bailout Plan thrilled Wall Street.
7 comments; last on Mar 27, 2009

Still Moron Money

Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 10:03 pm  //  g.h.kirsch

The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday it would buy $300 billion of long-term Treasurys over the next six months. The Fed also announced plans to buy an additional $750…

0 comments

Port of Bellingham gave millions to AIG

Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 10:19 am  //  John Servais

We local taxpayers have contributed $20 million of our own tax dollars to AIG's executives. Remember? A couple years ago the Port bought an insurance policy from AIG…

3 comments; last on Mar 23, 2009

Red Herring, Red Threat and A Red Letter Opportunity

Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 11:37 am  //  Tip Johnson

Red Herring

Shame on Obama, shame on Congress. Why punish workers while bailing out their bosses? The recent frenzy to demonize the employees of AIG is a more than…

5 comments; last on Mar 22, 2009

Obama Administration is Naive

Wed, Mar 18, 2009, 1:30 am  //  John Servais

The AIG bonuses are an outrage and all of America - left and right - feels this way. The news we have been reading from our MSM -…

10 comments; last on Mar 27, 2009

Moron Money

Sun, Mar 15, 2009, 6:25 pm  //  g.h.kirsch

"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers…

6 comments; last on Mar 17, 2009

The Food Police

Tue, Mar 10, 2009, 3:19 pm  //  Craig Mayberry

Two bills are currently working their way through Congress that could have a dramatic impact on our food supply. Both bills sound relatively safe, being branded as food…

2 comments; last on Mar 12, 2009

NwCitizen down - info

Tue, Mar 10, 2009, 2:04 pm  //  Site Management

To Readers, Commenters and Writers,

NwCitizen was down from Friday evening, March 6 till late Monday night. Our web hosting service had serious router problems that defied repeated attempts…

0 comments

Blind, Deaf and Dumb

Sun, Mar 08, 2009, 1:28 pm  //  g.h.kirsch

Kremen County has re-issued and revised its earlier Determination of Non-significance for the road to Vineyard Development. And as predicted (surprise, surprise) again determ

0 comments

Why Relocalization Advocates Should Fear Obama

Thu, Mar 05, 2009, 12:56 am  //  Craig Mayberry

It was hoped by many that Obama would come in a solve many of the problems that we are currently facing. I was hoping to wait a year…

0 comments

Cap or Trade

Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 11:49 am  //  g.h.kirsch

There's a disturbing pattern emerging in the current administration's approach to national problems.

Last week they proposed to saddle the citizenry with the costs of salvaging a priva

1 comments; last on Mar 04, 2009

Barbara’s response

Mon, Mar 02, 2009, 12:33 am  //  Guest writer

Jack Weiss, a member of the Bellingham City Council, has submitted this response to the Feb 27 post.
----------

Barbara, as the author of this piece, tries to state a…

4 comments; last on Mar 17, 2009

 

Election Info

Candidate Filings

Primary election results

Whatcom Auditor

Coal, Oil & Trains

Community Wise Bellingham

Powder River Basin R. C.

Local Blogs & News

Bellingham Herald

Bham Herald Politics Blog
Bham Politics & Economics
Cascadia Weekly
Ferndale Record
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
KGMI
Latte Republic
League of Women Voters
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light

Twilight Zoning
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch

Local Causes

Chuckanut Community Forest

City Club of Bellingham
Conservation NW
Futurewise - Whatcom
Lake Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
N. Cascades Audubon
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
Reduce Jet Noise
Salish Sea Org.
Save the Granary Building
Transition Whatcom
WA Conservation Voters

Governments

Bellingham

Port of Bellingham
Skagit County
US - The White House
WA State Access
WA State Elections
WA State Legislature
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom County

Weather & Climate

Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Climate Audit
Nat Hurricane Center
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That? - climate

Leisure

Adventures NW

Edge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Recreation Northwest
Sailing Anarchy

Good Web Sites

Al-Jazeera online

Alaska Dispatch
AlterNet.org
Antiwar.com
Arab News
Asia Times
Atlantic, The

Common Dreams
counterpunch
Crosscut Seattle
Daily Kos
Daily Mirror
Doonesbury
Drudge Report
FiveThirtyEight
Foreign Policy in Focus
GlobalPost
Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News
Haaretz
Huffington Post
Innocence Project, The
Intrnational Herald Tribune
James Fallows
Jerusalem Post
Joel Connelly
Juan Cole
Julia Ioffe/New Republic
Le Diplo
Media Matters
Michael Moore
Middle East Times
MoveOn.org
Nation, The
New American Century
News Trust
NMFA
numbers
Online Journal
Palestine Daily
Palestine News
Paul Krugman - economics
Personal bio info
Portland Indy Media
Progressive Review
Project Vote Smart
Reuters
Sea Shepherd
Slate
Stand for the Troops
Ta-Nehisi Coates
Talking Points Memo
TED
The Crisis Papers
The Intercept
the Oatmeal
Tom Paine.com
truthout
Vox
War and Piece
Washington Votes
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com

NwCitizen 1995 - 2007

Early Northwest Citizen

Quiet, Offline or Dead

Bellingham Police Activity

Bellingham Register
Bob Sanders
Carl Weimer
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizen Ted
Citizens of Bellingham
Cordata & Meridian
David Hackworth
Facebook Port Reform
HamsterTalk
Jack Petree
N. Sound Conservancy
No Leaky Buckets
Northwest Review
Orcinus
Post-Oklahoman Confessions
Protect Bellingham Parks
The American Telegraph
Wally Wonders