[Freakinoldguy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What a bullshit non-story. A 2 week, isolated, late warming. If this is news why isn't the consistent record, summer, cold in Alaska news anywhere else in the world except Alaska? Why isn't it news that the arctic melt is significantly less this year than it was last? If it was more you'd be hearing it on all channels.

Because Al Gore and the corporation he works for, can't make big bucks off a record cold summer. They sell global warming, not global cooling to dupes.

[mtbr]

I see we have a new kool aid drinker he likes strawberry.

[TattoodGirl]

mtbr mtbr:

I see we have a new kool aid drinker he likes strawberry.

Oh ya and it thinks there should be no mountain biking cuz it is destroying the environment (or its spelling envirement)...he is way past drinking the kool aid, he is on the ascent to meet the mother ship

[mtbr]

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

mtbr mtbr:

I see we have a new kool aid drinker he likes strawberry.

Oh ya and it thinks there should be no mountain biking cuz it is destroying the environment (or its spelling envirement)...he is way past drinking the kool aid, he is on the ascent to meet the mother ship

he's probably one of those weirdos who think hiking and horse back riding on the same trails leaves no trace

[N_Fiddledog]

LIBERALbred LIBERALbred:

Why wouldn't it be hotter? the rest of the world is warming.

No, it's not.





Thanks for the excuse to post a couple of my favorite graphs again.

(The second one in from here - Seven Graphs to Embarass a Warming Professor)

There are 3 warming trends in this debate. The warming trend coming out of the last real ice age lasting about 12,000 years. The warming trend coming out of the little ice age lasting hundreds of years, and the last warming trend lasting between 20 and 30 years. The first 2 trends have nothing to do with the theory of human caused, CO2 forced warming. The last one stopped rising in 1998, and I assume that's the one you're talking about. If we're talking about short term trends like that it seems reasonable to point out since 2002 the global trend is for cooling temperatures.

[mtbr]

LIBERALbred LIBERALbred:

courteous hikers do not go where they leave tracks

horses are no different than elk and goats

bikes leave ruts, ruts fill with water, water erodes.

you don't get out much do you?

courteous hikers?

horses don't leave ruts

[Gunnair]

mtbr mtbr:

LIBERALbred LIBERALbred:

courteous hikers do not go where they leave tracks

horses are no different than elk and goats

bikes leave ruts, ruts fill with water, water erodes.

you don't get out much do you?

courteous hikers?

horses don't leave ruts

Actually, I agree with the guy to a point. Moutain bikers, in my hiking experience, do like to ride on trails they are not allowed to ride on, do leave damage that most hikers don't leave, and are very discourteous to the hikers they may collide with on blind turns and over hills.

Mountain biking parks are established, they should stay there.

[mtbr]

Gunnair Gunnair:

mtbr mtbr:

LIBERALbred LIBERALbred:

courteous hikers do not go where they leave tracks

horses are no different than elk and goats

bikes leave ruts, ruts fill with water, water erodes.

you don't get out much do you?

courteous hikers?

horses don't leave ruts

Actually, I agree with the guy to a point. Moutain bikers, in my hiking experience, do like to ride on trails they are not allowed to ride on, do leave damage that most hikers don't leave, and are very discourteous to the hikers they may collide with on blind turns and over hills.

Mountain biking parks are established, they should stay there.

mountain bike parks are very limited in most parts of the country. Horseback riders and hikers have more political pull that's why they win in having bikes banished from trails, it's not because they've proven their point about erosion.b

Mt Assiniboine trails which border Alberta and BC are the perfect example. Parks management decided in 97 cyclists we're scaring the wild life andupsetting the balance of nature cyclists were banned. However there was no limits placed on the amount of hikers and horseback riders who were permitted to go up to the summit lodge, and if you don't feel like walking there is still a helicopter to take you to the summit ...it leaves hourly. The noise of a helicopter doesn't upset the balance of nature idiots.

hikers and horseback riders never break the rules either

next time you go for a hike take a look at the tracks you leave behind and the horse prints left as well.

your argument is worthless and has fortunately been shot down in more than one court room in Canada.

[N_Fiddledog]

LIBERALbred LIBERALbred:

Go back to school and get a doctors degree on climate if you want to take on the IPCC.

Nah. A doctorate isn't really necessary to critique the IPCC. You just need an open mind, and a willingness to read.

I'll give you a few blurbs from select papers, and other writings on the subject. Support for the claims are generally found in the main bodies of the writings which can be seen at the links offered.

$1:

I have been an “Expert Reviewer” for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its first major Report in 1990. The IPCC is claimed by some to have provided evidence that the earth’s climate is harmed by changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. These claims are false. This report explains how dubious observations and some genuine science has been distorted and “spun” to support a global campaign to limit human emissions of certain greenhouse gases which has no scientific basis.

Dr. Vincent Gray ~ The IPCC. Spinning the Climate

$1:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)gives the impression that its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)was thoroughly and diligently reviewed and the statements contained in the report were endorsed by a very high percentage of
reviewers. This analysis of the reviewers' comments for Working Group I (WG I)shows that the reality is rather different and that there is surprisingly little explicit support for the key notion,that humans are very likely (90%to 95%)responsible for climate change.

An Analysis of the Review of the IPCC 4AR WG I Report

$1:

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation...

The UN climate change numbers hoax

Here's one from an environmentalists rag...

$1:

Poor forecasting undermines climate debate

"POLITICIANS seem to think that the science is a done deal," says Tim Palmer. "I don't want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain."

Palmer is a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, and he does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC's predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. They fear that if the IPCC's predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate.

On top of this, some climate scientists believe that even the IPCC's global forecasts leave much to be desired. ...

Story from NewScientist

$1:

The IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter presumes a widespread human influence on climate, rather than consideration of whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether. Though the IPCC's principles also state that a wide range of views is to be sought when selecting lead authors and contributing authors, this rule has been honored more in the breach than in the observance.

More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science
assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each
other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each
other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on climate significant enough to be damaging to the planet were
unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9. Many of the IPCC authors were climate
modelers - or associated with laboratories committed to modeling - unwilling to
admit that their models are neither accurate nor complete. Still less do they recognize or admit that modeling a chaotic object whose initial state and evolutionary processes are not known to a sufficient precision has a validation skill not significantly different from zero. In short, it cannot be done and has long been proven impossible. The modelers say that the “consensus” among their models is significant: but it is an artifact of ex-post-facto tuning to replicate historical temperatures, of repeated intercomparison studies, and of the authors’ shared belief in the unrealistically high estimate of climate sensitivity upon which all of the models assume.

The hypothesis of damaging, man-made warming is a long way from being proven –
and, given the recent trend in the peer-reviewed literature, is well on the way to being disproven. Recent cooling of the planet further suggests that man-made warming is at best too weak to be detected in the “noise” of natural internal variability.

Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on
global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of
them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the
wider scientific community. On the evidence presented here, the IPCC’s selection of
its chapter authors appears so prejudiced towards a predetermined outcome that it
renders its scientific assessment of the climate suspect and its conclusions
inappropriate for policy making.

Summary of Points for Policy Makers

Here's just a couple of links...

List of Errors, Exaggerations, and Distortions in IPCC AR 4

Research ignored by IPCC

I can post many more if you like, but I doubt you'll read these. Tell me if you want more though.

[N_Fiddledog]

LIBERALbred LIBERALbred:

I'll leave that stuff to those WHO ARE DESPERATE TO BELIEVE.

This from an obvious true believer. That's cute.

More and more IPCC reviewers themselves critique the IPCC as either questionale, or pretty much worthless. You saw a comment from IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray. Here's a few more.

Dr. Richard Lindzen

Why Hurricane expert Dr. Christopher Landsea left the IPCC

Dr. Paul Reiter had to threaten to sue the IPCC before they'd take his name off the report as an endorser

Here's a former IPCC member from Argentina who's since become a Skeptic

Here's another one - Dr. Kiminori Itoh

Recently the editor for the newsletter of the American Physics Society wrote this...

$1:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... editor.cfm

[Wally_Sconce]

Landsea resigned from the IPCC not because he is scepticval
about Climate Change but because of a dispute with another scientist
about the cause of Hurricanes. Landsea maintains that Climate Change
had nothing to do with increased Hurricane activity: Tremberth, the lead
author for that part of the IPCC report said it was anthropogenic
related Climate Chenge.

Both were in the wrong. Landsea because his ego refused to accept any
part in the causation and Tremberth because he was not the author of any
study.

It seems obvious from the studies of other scientists that GW is
contributing to the higher intensity of Hurricanes but frequency is
uncertain.

The point is that Landsea is a firm supporter of the consensus view in
Climate Change: not, as you are suggesting, a denier.

Dr. Vincent Gray is a Meteorologist not a Climate scientist. He is an
expert in Hurricane forecasting but not in the causes. He is another
with no studies to support him and a very large ego.

Lindzen supports Climate Change but puts it down to solar activity even
though every study except his own shows that it is not. He is the
saddest case. An outstanding scientist bucking the world because his
study could not stand up to review.

Reiter is on the scietific committee of an American Think Tank that has
been funded by Exxon and has been denying Climate Change on their behalf
for a decade. I forget which "Think Tank" but it is unimportant since
Reiter has no research to back his stand.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

LIBERALbred LIBERALbred:

I'll leave that stuff to those WHO ARE DESPERATE TO BELIEVE.

This from an obvious true believer. That's cute.

More and more IPCC reviewers themselves critique the IPCC as either questionale, or pretty much worthless. You saw a comment from IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray. Here's a few more.

Dr. Richard Lindzen

Why Hurricane expert Dr. Christopher Landsea left the IPCC

Dr. Paul Reiter had to threaten to sue the IPCC before they'd take his name off the report as an endorser

Here's a former IPCC member from Argentina who's since become a Skeptic

Here's another one - Dr. Kiminori Itoh

Recently the editor for the newsletter of the American Physics Society wrote this...

$1:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... editor.cfm

[Rats]

This global warming horseshit is nothing more than a political and special interest group hay ride.

History tells us that since the last ice age, the planet has been on a constant warming pattern. This cooling/warming pattern has been repeated a thousand times since the forming of the earth.

It only stands to reason that as the polar ice shelves, the glaciers, and the frozen tundra warm and melt, there is less cooling air radiating off these sources. Hence, the surrounding air mass will warm accordingly and spread.

My brother in law works for a drilling company in the Arctic and they have shale pieces that are being floated to the surface that have tropical plant forms amongst the shale pieces. Now how in hell did that tropical plant life come from? Ancient traders?

[N_Fiddledog]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Landsea resigned from the IPCC not because he is scepticval
about Climate Change but because of a dispute with another scientist
about the cause of Hurricanes. Landsea maintains that Climate Change
had nothing to do with increased Hurricane activity: Tremberth, the lead
author for that part of the IPCC report said it was anthropogenic
related Climate Chenge.

Both were in the wrong. Landsea because his ego refused to accept any
part in the causation and Tremberth because he was not the author of any
study.

It seems obvious from the studies of other scientists that GW is
contributing to the higher intensity of Hurricanes but frequency is
uncertain.

The point is that Landsea is a firm supporter of the consensus view in
Climate Change: not, as you are suggesting, a denier.

I never claimed Landsea was a "denier". I'd never use that term. In my opinion it only serves to betray the user's ignorance if all he has for support is an ad hominem attack.

My point was Landsea's rejection of the IPCC illustrated fundamental flaws in the way the IPCC operates, and if you tell the whole story rather than over-simplifying, that becomes obvious.

Trenberth was not just "another scientist". He was the IPCC Coordinating Lead Author. He invited Landsea to contribute to the IPCC hurricane chapter. And it wasn't just Trenberth Landsea had a problem with. It was the process.

What happened was the IPCC held a press conference...

I'll tell you what, you obviously didn't click the link to the article I posted, so I'll just quote the description of what followed.

$1:

Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.

To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record. And until your new work would come out, in 2007, the IPCC would not have a new analysis on which to base a change of findings.

To stop the press conference, or at least stop any misunderstandings that might come out of it, you contacted Dr. Trenberth prior to the media event. You prepared a synopsis for him that brought him up to date on the state of knowledge about hurricane formation. To your amazement, he simply dismissed your concerns. The press conference proceeded.

And what a press conference it was! Hurricanes had been all over the news that summer. Global warming was the obvious culprit -- only a fool or an oil-industry lobbyist, the press made clear, could ignore the link between what seemed to be ever increasing hurricane activity and ever increasing global warming. The press conference didn't disappoint them. The climate change experts at hand all confirmed the news that the public had been primed to hear: Global warming was causing hurricanes. This judgement from the scientists made headlines around the world, just as it was intended to do. What better way to cast global warming as catastrophic than to make hurricanes its poster child?

You wanted to right this outrageous wrong, this mockery that was made of your scientific field. You wrote top IPCC officials, imploring: "Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know, there are none." But no one in the IPCC leadership showed the slightest concern for the science. The IPCC's overriding preoccupation, it soon sunk in, lay in capitalizing on the publicity opportunity that the hurricane season presented.

You then asked the IPCC leadership for assurances that your work for the IPCC's 2007 report would be true to science: "[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community. ... Thus I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information and the consensus within the scientific community most expert on the specific topic."

The assurance didn't come. What did come was the realization that the IPCC was corrupting science. This you could not be a party to. You then resigned, in an open letter to the scientific community laying out your reasons.

And here's another thing. The IPCC made predictions at that press conference more intense hurricanes were coming in the years following. They didn't happen in 2006. They didn't happen is 2007. They might happen this year, but it's been a cold year.

Also where did you get the idea "It seems obvious from the studies of other scientists that GW is contributing to the higher intensity of Hurricanes but frequency is uncertain"?

Even Kerry Emanuel one of the most influential scientists who had at one time supported that theory has back-tracked on it. He's not the only one. Current studies dealing with stuff like wind shear tend to discredit the theory of warming causing more intense hurricanes.

[N_Fiddledog]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Lindzen supports Climate Change but puts it down to solar activity even
though every study except his own shows that it is not. He is the
saddest case. An outstanding scientist bucking the world because his
study could not stand up to review.

Writing off Lindzen as a supporter the idea the sun might have something to do with warming is really over-simplifying. First of all we're talking about this guy.

$1:

Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers and books

My favourite Richard Lindzen quote is from one of his students. "He's only half as smart as he thinks he is, but that still makes him twice as smart as everybody else."

Is he controversial? Sure he is. But he's not only concerned with solar activity. The one they've been arguing about a lot lately is his hypothesis "an “adaptive infrared iris” that opens and closes to keep the earth’s temperature fairly steady even in light of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels".

$1:

Reiter is on the scietific committee of an American Think Tank that has
been funded by Exxon and has been denying Climate Change on their behalf
for a decade. I forget which "Think Tank" but it is unimportant since
Reiter has no research to back his stand.

Of all the the ad hominems you've flung so far this one is the most bogus. Not because Reiter did not perhaps "sit on the Scientific and Economic Advisory Council of an organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy, but because...so what?

First of all what exactly does "sit on" mean in this context? Does it mean Reiter himself received money directly from Exxon, by his association with the non-profit organization? They'll never say that. They'd be sued if they did. They know that. It's not true.

And when I say "they" I'm referring to organizations like DeSmog Blog which is where I'm assuming you're getting your information from. Those guys have a lot of nerve sitting in their glass houses throwing stones. It's founded and operated by Jim Hoggan's PR Firm. Jim Hoggan is the guy who chairs the volunteer board of the Suzuki Foundation. Both Hoggan and associates, and the Suzuki foundation are at least partially financed by energy companies. In fact H & A does business with AMEC an Exxon company.

Here's the thing, if all you've got is tiny, insinuating factoids attacking personal reputations you've got nothing. It works both ways. Wanna talk about people like Hansen and Gore?

And BTW here's a quote from the alarmist bible over at Desmog. "Reiter has published over 30 pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals mainly on the subject of infectous disease, with some work on the relationship between disease and climate change.

[BartSimpson]

mtbr mtbr:

Hyack Hyack:

Environment Canada Weather Forecast



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pangnirtung
Issued at: 4.00 PM EDT Friday 1 August 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonight..A few clouds. Low 7.
Saturday..Sunny with cloudy periods. High 15. UV index 4 or moderate.
Saturday night..Cloudy periods. Low 10.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday..Sunny. High 15.
Monday..Sunny. Low 11. High 12.
Tuesday..Sunny. Low 8. High 13.
Normals for the period..Low plus 3. High 11.

WOW a whole 4 degrees above normal yup that's evidence of global warming...it's supposed to be 17 or 18 in Calgary this weekend that must be evidence of global cooling. 5 degrees below normal... again

No, the way this works is that any observed warming is PROOF of CERTAIN DOOM caused by Western Industrialized Civilization (Indian and Chinese pollution doesn't cause Global Warming, you see) and any observed cooling is simply anomalous and has nothing at all to do with any global climate trends.