July sea ice second lowest ever

[westwall]

The North Polar Ice Cap is at least a million years old.

40% of its volume has melted in the last 40 years.

Care to provide a link for that particular bit of horse poop.

 

[westwall]

The North Polar Ice Cap is at least a million years old.

40% of its volume has melted in the last 40 years.

I have pictures of Glacier Park when my mother went there in 1938.
They are all almost gone now because the world is cooling.
You have to give it up man. Cigarettes are good for you, Adolph Hitler led the Argenitinian government in the Falklands War, Elvis is working at the Waffle House in Hahira, Ga. and pro wrasslin is real. If you do not believe so get in the ring with them and find out.

And maybe you'll one day read the literature that the Park Service provides for the touristas that quite clearly states that the glaciers in Glacier National Park have been melting since at least the 1850's. And yes I've been there too!

 

[Foxfyre]

But the beat goes on. Despite the embarassing e-mail scandal and more and more scientists defecting from the AGW camp, the alarmists and AGW religionists will believe ANYTHING they read that supports anthropogenic global warming and will continue to blow off anything that puts that into question.

And the hits re the speculation and incompetence of research used by the IPPC just keep on coming:

From The Sunday Times January 17, 2010
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments." . . . .
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

Are there anomalies in weather patterns here and there around the world? Absolutely. Such have existed I presume since there has been a climate on Earth. Is the Earth overall warming? Yes it is and has been since the last ice age but it is doing so at such a miniscule rate we should have ample time to adjust to any consequences of that involved.

Even now, since we have been keep a record of global temperatures, not a day goes by that record heat and record cold isn't reported somewhere. That is likely to continue for a quite long time.

 

[konradv]

Are the Maldives underwater as a direct result of the "loss of ice"?

Are you going to ever ask a relevant question?

That is a relevant question konrad. The claim has been made that the Maldives are going to disappear under the ocean. That claim was made years ago. The last time I looked the Maldives were still above water. The one thing that has been proven was that the Australian Broadcasting Company was lying about the rate of ocean rise. I highlighted the relevant sentence.

Global warming scare mongering: the Maldives is sinking fast - along with 60 Minutes credibility
Elizabeth Krantz - 18 May 2009

Viewers of Channel Nine's 60 Minutes on Sunday night 17th May 2009 were treated to one of the most deceptive and misleading stories imaginable as the producers let their global warming evangelism overcome journalistic integrity in a beat up of the Maldives supposed journey to the bottom of the ocean.

Against a back-drop of the Maldives, reporter Liz Hayes exclaims "If ever you needed proof that global warming exists, it's right here. The Maldives is drowning". Very dramatic. So what proof did Hayes offer?

The camera shifts to Hayes standing waist-deep in water lamenting "For me, this is quite a sight. I visited eight years ago, and I walked right here, on what was then dry, hot sand". From her previous comments the implication is clear - sea levels at the Maldives have risen by over one metre in eight years.

This is deceptive scare-mongering in the extreme. The most likely reason for the change is normal sand erosion due to tides and storms.

Hayes introduces Australian scientist and fervent advocate of the global warming hypothesis, Charles Veron who continues the scare-mongering.

"We're in for a change in climate like we've never imagined before," alarmist Charlie says. "We're going to be witnessing whole cities being destroyed through the sea level rise".

That's right - whole cities destroyed. Alarmist Charlie did not say which cities.

Unfortunately for producer Stephen Rice and reporter Hayes their deception was exposed by alarmist Charlie in the chat session after the show.

A number of participants were eager to know why such dramatic sea level rises were not evident in the rest of the world. Alarmist Charlie ducked around the questions until finally when asked what scientific measuring device was used to determine the sea level is rising in the Maldives, Veron made this amazing admission, "There is no specific measurable sea level rise in the Maldives".

That's right, no measurable sea level rise.

But hang on, wasn't that what the whole program was about? Maldives is about to be the new Atlantis.

After this shattering blow to their credibility, 60 Minutes should stick to their stock-in-trade of providing light entertainment in the form of fluffy interviews with Hollywood movie stars.


Global warming - the Maldives is sinking

Interesting, but as usual, irrelevant. The fact that the Maldives haven't disappeared yet proves nothing. Are we married to a particular time line? When was that decided? IT'S THE GASES, STUPID. Everything else is just denier distraction. The basic physics can't be denied, so confusing the issue is the bulk of the denier M.O.

 

[Gadawg73]

The North Polar Ice Cap is at least a million years old.

40% of its volume has melted in the last 40 years.

I have pictures of Glacier Park when my mother went there in 1938.
They are all almost gone now because the world is cooling.
You have to give it up man. Cigarettes are good for you, Adolph Hitler led the Argenitinian government in the Falklands War, Elvis is working at the Waffle House in Hahira, Ga. and pro wrasslin is real. If you do not believe so get in the ring with them and find out.

And maybe you'll one day read the literature that the Park Service provides for the touristas that quite clearly states that the glaciers in Glacier National Park have been melting since at least the 1850's. And yes I've been there too!

West, you strike me as intelligent.
How come you do not post the FACTS?
You damn well know the MELT RATE from 1900 forward is far faster, a hell of a lot faster than the melt rate from the 1850s -1900.
Why is that West and how come you conveniently left that out?
And how come the MELT RATE for almost all other glaciers worldwide is at the same pattern? A faster melt rate from 1900 forward than ANY OTHER TIME EVER.
You do know they do ice core research from samples, don't you? And you do know that ice core data is undisputed. How can you dispute that?
The facts are that after the industrial revolution and hot smoke entering the atmosphere glaciers melt faster. Go and put your hand over your car exhaust and tell me if that is hot or coldand what comes out and what color it is.
Go out and put black soot over ice or snow and tell me with a straight face that it does not melt astronomically faster.
Time to wade through the BS.

 

[westwall]

I have pictures of Glacier Park when my mother went there in 1938.
They are all almost gone now because the world is cooling.
You have to give it up man. Cigarettes are good for you, Adolph Hitler led the Argenitinian government in the Falklands War, Elvis is working at the Waffle House in Hahira, Ga. and pro wrasslin is real. If you do not believe so get in the ring with them and find out.

And maybe you'll one day read the literature that the Park Service provides for the touristas that quite clearly states that the glaciers in Glacier National Park have been melting since at least the 1850's. And yes I've been there too!

West, you strike me as intelligent.
How come you do not post the FACTS?
You damn well know the MELT RATE from 1900 forward is far faster, a hell of a lot faster than the melt rate from the 1850s -1900.
Why is that West and how come you conveniently left that out?
And how come the MELT RATE for almost all other glaciers worldwide is at the same pattern? A faster melt rate from 1900 forward than ANY OTHER TIME EVER.
You do know they do ice core research from samples, don't you? And you do know that ice core data is undisputed. How can you dispute that?
The facts are that after the industrial revolution and hot smoke entering the atmosphere glaciers melt faster. Go and put your hand over your car exhaust and tell me if that is hot or coldand what comes out and what color it is.
Go out and put black soot over ice or snow and tell me with a straight face that it does not melt astronomically faster.
Time to wade through the BS.

Yes the melt rate is faster. But, the reason for the melt rate being faster is time from the Little Ice Age. At the end of the Little Ice Age the glaciers in the park began melting. As time progressed the glaciers melted faster. There would be periods where the ice would accumulate and then the retreat would continue. The fact that the whole areas is still isostatically rebounding from the weight of ice that had been upon it prooves that it was warmer than today because even Greenland is still bouncing back. That means there was less ice on Greenland too.

These are facts. This is not anecdotal "I saw it in 1938 and the ice is lower now than then." The fact reamins that it takes a ridiculously long time to melt glacial ice sheets.
The alarmists and you clearly can't wrap your head around the fact that the Earth exists in a time frame that is far longer han humans. Just like we live our lives at a rate far slower than cats and dogs.

It has been calculated that if the temps were to remain as high as they were in 1998 it would take 16,000 years to melt the ice sheet on Greenland. Here's a little math question for you. Assume you live to the grand old age of 100, what percentage of that 16,000 years would your whole life be?

That is what you have to take into consideration. We know that the world operates on cycles that take hundreds of years. We know that there are cycles that take thousands of years. Those are facts. Man's lifetime is a mere blip in the life of the planet.

 

[Spoonman]

July sea ice second lowest: oldest ice begins to melt

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for July was the second lowest in the satellite record, after 2007. After a slowdown in the rate of ice loss, the old, thick ice that moved into the southern Beaufort Sea last winter is beginning to melt out.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

This should make the Northwest Passage a little easier to find.

 

[westwall]

Are you going to ever ask a relevant question?

That is a relevant question konrad. The claim has been made that the Maldives are going to disappear under the ocean. That claim was made years ago. The last time I looked the Maldives were still above water. The one thing that has been proven was that the Australian Broadcasting Company was lying about the rate of ocean rise. I highlighted the relevant sentence.

Global warming scare mongering: the Maldives is sinking fast - along with 60 Minutes credibility
Elizabeth Krantz - 18 May 2009

Viewers of Channel Nine's 60 Minutes on Sunday night 17th May 2009 were treated to one of the most deceptive and misleading stories imaginable as the producers let their global warming evangelism overcome journalistic integrity in a beat up of the Maldives supposed journey to the bottom of the ocean.

Against a back-drop of the Maldives, reporter Liz Hayes exclaims "If ever you needed proof that global warming exists, it's right here. The Maldives is drowning". Very dramatic. So what proof did Hayes offer?

The camera shifts to Hayes standing waist-deep in water lamenting "For me, this is quite a sight. I visited eight years ago, and I walked right here, on what was then dry, hot sand". From her previous comments the implication is clear - sea levels at the Maldives have risen by over one metre in eight years.

This is deceptive scare-mongering in the extreme. The most likely reason for the change is normal sand erosion due to tides and storms.

Hayes introduces Australian scientist and fervent advocate of the global warming hypothesis, Charles Veron who continues the scare-mongering.

"We're in for a change in climate like we've never imagined before," alarmist Charlie says. "We're going to be witnessing whole cities being destroyed through the sea level rise".

That's right - whole cities destroyed. Alarmist Charlie did not say which cities.

Unfortunately for producer Stephen Rice and reporter Hayes their deception was exposed by alarmist Charlie in the chat session after the show.

A number of participants were eager to know why such dramatic sea level rises were not evident in the rest of the world. Alarmist Charlie ducked around the questions until finally when asked what scientific measuring device was used to determine the sea level is rising in the Maldives, Veron made this amazing admission, "There is no specific measurable sea level rise in the Maldives".

That's right, no measurable sea level rise.

But hang on, wasn't that what the whole program was about? Maldives is about to be the new Atlantis.

After this shattering blow to their credibility, 60 Minutes should stick to their stock-in-trade of providing light entertainment in the form of fluffy interviews with Hollywood movie stars.


Global warming - the Maldives is sinking

Interesting, but as usual, irrelevant. The fact that the Maldives haven't disappeared yet proves nothing. Are we married to a particular time line? When was that decided? IT'S THE GASES, STUPID. Everything else is just denier distraction. The basic physics can't be denied, so confusing the issue is the bulk of the denier M.O.

konrad if it was that simple the effects would be unarguable. The fact that the temperature records have been altered and the fact that the means of generating those temperature records have been contaminated renders your argument null and void. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the theory (as it is currently known) can not happen.

There may be other factors that we don't know about but the basic science hypothesis itself is still in question (as evidenced that therie is in fact no concensus between the other
areas of science and the climatologists. 74 climatologists is not a consensus no matter how hard you try and no matter how much you want to believe.

 

[IanC]

It would be nice if all the raw data was put out and accessable to everyone. And when that data was then used to make a study or produce a computer model, the authors would be transparent in their methods so that others could check or replicate that work. You know, like real science and scientists. Not like high school politics of popularity being practised in climate science today.

I think if people knew how flimsy the data was, how poor the mathematics, and how twisted the adjustments and correction were, then no one would be stupid enough to make predictions of catastrophy and few who be taken in if there were.

Half the scientists on the AGW side think it is only their small area of expertise that is at odds with the theory. They are just going along with it for 'the team'.

Now hold on just a minute there Slick!

If you have no access to the data and methods, as you claim in the earlier post, then how can you know the data was flimsy, the math was poor, and the adjustments were twisted, as you claim in your next post????????

Both posts cannot be true!

How do you figure that both of those comments be true? Let's take an example: tree rings and the hockey stick.

All we ever see from the AGW alarmists are the end results, graphs and dire explanations of them. When a canadian academic asked for the data and methodology he originally got some info and then was cut off when it was determined he was not on the 'right' side. After determined digging he found out just how cherry picked the data used in the chart was, that only a select few tree cores were exaggerated and other information left out. Not only that but when he took statistical methodology to the math department he was told that practically any data (even just random numbers) would produce a hockey stick shaped graph.

Why should the so-called skeptics need to force the issue with FOIA instead of just being able to ask for the relevant information? Why are positive tree rings given so much more weight than non conclusive or negative ones? Why should methodologies be treated as state secrets rather than open books?

There may be reasonable explanations for the apparent skullduggery of the AGW alarmists but the obvious image is that of rationalizations for misdirection and exaggeration.

Ed- ask yourself why the hockey stick graph changed so dramatically only after its deficiencies were publicly derided. There was no 'new' data. Just data that had been discarded previously as insufficiently biased to the 'cause'.

 

[JWBooth]

July sea ice second lowest ever

BFD

Its a satellite record - 30 yrs. What a waste of bandwith.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the intensely peer reviewed Indpendent Summary for Policymakers, much of the IPCC report is supported and some is disputed due to what appears to be 'cherry picking' of data to include. The ISPM is not intended to discredit anybody, but rather keep everything in perspective. Emphasis mine:

Their most recent conclusion:

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was
agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence.

The Earth's climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the
difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties,
knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding
data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.

The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a
variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth's climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.

Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive
as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

 

[IanC]

Good post Foxfyre. I think that most reasonable people with access to the information on AGW would agree that is an area that we need to keep investigating but that we should not jump to drastic 'solutions' that we know even less about.

 

[edthecynic]

In the intensely peer reviewed Indpendent Summary for Policymakers, much of the IPCC report is supported and some is disputed due to what appears to be 'cherry picking' of data to include. The ISPM is not intended to discredit anybody, but rather keep everything in perspective. Emphasis mine:

Their most recent conclusion:

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was
agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence.


The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

Again we see how CON$ deliberately deceive by telling just enough truth and then shutting up. What you left out was the "intense peer review" was NEGATIVE!!!

A perfect example of why is the lie highlighted in blue. The land based temp trend (blue line) splits the two satellite trends (red and green lines) right down the middle.

 

[edthecynic]

It would be nice if all the raw data was put out and accessable to everyone. And when that data was then used to make a study or produce a computer model, the authors would be transparent in their methods so that others could check or replicate that work. You know, like real science and scientists. Not like high school politics of popularity being practised in climate science today.

I think if people knew how flimsy the data was, how poor the mathematics, and how twisted the adjustments and correction were, then no one would be stupid enough to make predictions of catastrophy and few who be taken in if there were.

Half the scientists on the AGW side think it is only their small area of expertise that is at odds with the theory. They are just going along with it for 'the team'.

Now hold on just a minute there Slick!

If you have no access to the data and methods, as you claim in the earlier post, then how can you know the data was flimsy, the math was poor, and the adjustments were twisted, as you claim in your next post????????

Both posts cannot be true!

How do you figure that both of those comments be true? Let's take an example: tree rings and the hockey stick.

All we ever see from the AGW alarmists are the end results, graphs and dire explanations of them. When a canadian academic asked for the data and methodology he originally got some info and then was cut off when it was determined he was not on the 'right' side. After determined digging he found out just how cherry picked the data used in the chart was, that only a select few tree cores were exaggerated and other information left out. Not only that but when he took statistical methodology to the math department he was told that practically any data (even just random numbers) would produce a hockey stick shaped graph.

Why should the so-called skeptics need to force the issue with FOIA instead of just being able to ask for the relevant information? Why are positive tree rings given so much more weight than non conclusive or negative ones? Why should methodologies be treated as state secrets rather than open books?

There may be reasonable explanations for the apparent skullduggery of the AGW alarmists but the obvious image is that of rationalizations for misdirection and exaggeration.

Ed- ask yourself why the hockey stick graph changed so dramatically only after its deficiencies were publicly derided. There was no 'new' data. Just data that had been discarded previously as insufficiently biased to the 'cause'.

The hockey stick didn't change!!!!! You've been had by your denier sources. You can get the same hockey stick graph without tree rings, as you well know. I've already posted this graph and pointed out that each different color line uses a different method of proxy data and the solid black line is direct instrument measurement.

 

[IanC]

Ed- you should take the jump and read both sides of the AGW story. I'm not saying you will change your mind but you will certainly find that there are a lot more holes in the story than you think now.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good post Foxfyre. I think that most reasonable people with access to the information on AGW would agree that is an area that we need to keep investigating but that we should not jump to drastic 'solutions' that we know even less about.

Noting Ed's post and that he blew off a peer reviewed scientific report in favor of posting more computer manufactured graphs most likely from propagandists.

And thanking you, IanC, for keeping it reasonable.

Nobody with a brain thinks this stuff should not be studied. Nobody with a brain thinks that climate research should not be done or that whatever results are honestly produced should not be widely reported. An open mind is essential.

But anybody with a brain has to know that data produced by those whose funding depends on the data should be verified and verified and verified again before that data should be trusted as the last word.

And anybody with a brain has to know that there are politics and opportunistic motives built into all this stuff that simply cannot be blown off or dismissed as irrelevant.

By all means lets continue the research and if, and only IF, the data re AGW is confirmed by credible scientists who don't have a dog in the fight, THEN we should figure out what is the best way to deal with that. And IF the data shows that we are into a major climate shift, THEN we should figure out how to best help people adjust to that.

Otherwise, I am not willing to hand over my personal liberties, opportunities, choices, options, etc. for national or international policy that would control all of those based on what is most probably faulty or even junk science. And I am not willing to consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty based on what is most probably faulty or junk science either.

 

[Gadawg73]

Are the folks that claim there IS NO WARMING alarmists?
Which is it you double speak folks?
Out of one side of your mouth you claim there is NO warming and out of the other we hear:
"Well if there is any warming, yet I am not willing to admit there is any as anyone that does admit there is warming is an alarmist, but if there IS any then it just has to be natural and part of the invisible man in the sky's plan"
You folks are dodging facts and science and talking in tongues double speak like a monkey on fire.
And it is pure bull shit.
Which is it and why does the CIA, DOD, NOAA,NASA and every other American defense,scientific and research organization believe it is happening and at an alarming rate?
Hell, even the NFL states that the weather is much hotter these days as their players train. Please prove the NFL are alarmist.
The scary part of this is if you folks ARE wrong about this how are you going to justify your obvious ignorance?
And I am no alarmist. I M a conservative outdoorsman, owner of three corporations and travel the world hunting and fishing for 30 years.
I see it happening and you folks are blind as a damn bat. Alarmist? What a friggin joke. I know the trout and oysters are not alarmist. The water is warming at an alarming rate folks. Maybe you folks need to put the Nintendo down and get in the real world where I am every day.
Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, Canada and dozens of other countries I have been to. We know and we have NO agenda other than survival.
Wake up.

 

[edthecynic]

In the intensely peer reviewed Indpendent Summary for Policymakers, much of the IPCC report is supported and some is disputed due to what appears to be 'cherry picking' of data to include. The ISPM is not intended to discredit anybody, but rather keep everything in perspective. Emphasis mine:

Their most recent conclusion:

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was
agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence.


The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

Again we see how CON$ deliberately deceive by telling just enough truth and then shutting up. What you left out was the "intense peer review" was NEGATIVE!!!

A perfect example of why is the lie highlighted in blue. The land based temp trend (blue line) splits the two satellite trends (red and green lines) right down the middle.

Good post Foxfyre. I think that most reasonable people with access to the information on AGW would agree that is an area that we need to keep investigating but that we should not jump to drastic 'solutions' that we know even less about.

Noting Ed's post and that he blew off a peer reviewed scientific report in favor of posting more computer manufactured graphs most likely from propagandists.

And thanking you, IanC, for keeping it reasonable.

Nobody with a brain thinks this stuff should not be studied. Nobody with a brain thinks that climate research should not be done or that whatever results are honestly produced should not be widely reported. An open mind is essential.

But anybody with a brain has to know that data produced by those whose funding depends on the data should be verified and verified and verified again before that data should be trusted as the last word.

And anybody with a brain has to know that there are politics and opportunistic motives built into all this stuff that simply cannot be blown off or dismissed as irrelevant.

By all means lets continue the research and if, and only IF, the data re AGW is confirmed by credible scientists who don't have a dog in the fight, THEN we should figure out what is the best way to deal with that. And IF the data shows that we are into a major climate shift, THEN we should figure out how to best help people adjust to that.

Otherwise, I am not willing to hand over my personal liberties, opportunities, choices, options, etc. for national or international policy that would control all of those based on what is most probably faulty or even junk science. And I am not willing to consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty based on what is most probably faulty or junk science either.

Of course, you again dishonestly blow off the fact that the peer review was negative and precisely because it was NOT a scientific study, in fact, the coordinator of the "study" is an economist!!!

"Anyone with a brain" knows that the red line in the graph comes from the most famous deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH.

Again, CON$ refuse to believe any data that goes against their religious dogma no matter who the source.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll just refer you to previous posts in response to your tirade Ed.

 

[IanC]

In the intensely peer reviewed Indpendent Summary for Policymakers, much of the IPCC report is supported and some is disputed due to what appears to be 'cherry picking' of data to include. The ISPM is not intended to discredit anybody, but rather keep everything in perspective. Emphasis mine:

Their most recent conclusion:

Again we see how CON$ deliberately deceive by telling just enough truth and then shutting up. What you left out was the "intense peer review" was NEGATIVE!!!

A perfect example of why is the lie highlighted in blue. The land based temp trend (blue line) splits the two satellite trends (red and green lines) right down the middle.

Good post Foxfyre. I think that most reasonable people with access to the information on AGW would agree that is an area that we need to keep investigating but that we should not jump to drastic 'solutions' that we know even less about.

Noting Ed's post and that he blew off a peer reviewed scientific report in favor of posting more computer manufactured graphs most likely from propagandists.

And thanking you, IanC, for keeping it reasonable.

Nobody with a brain thinks this stuff should not be studied. Nobody with a brain thinks that climate research should not be done or that whatever results are honestly produced should not be widely reported. An open mind is essential.

But anybody with a brain has to know that data produced by those whose funding depends on the data should be verified and verified and verified again before that data should be trusted as the last word.

And anybody with a brain has to know that there are politics and opportunistic motives built into all this stuff that simply cannot be blown off or dismissed as irrelevant.

By all means lets continue the research and if, and only IF, the data re AGW is confirmed by credible scientists who don't have a dog in the fight, THEN we should figure out what is the best way to deal with that. And IF the data shows that we are into a major climate shift, THEN we should figure out how to best help people adjust to that.

Otherwise, I am not willing to hand over my personal liberties, opportunities, choices, options, etc. for national or international policy that would control all of those based on what is most probably faulty or even junk science. And I am not willing to consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty based on what is most probably faulty or junk science either.

Of course, you again dishonestly blow off the fact that the peer review was negative and precisely because it was NOT a scientific study, in fact, the coordinator of the "study" is an economist!!!

"Anyone with a brain" knows that the red line in the graph comes from the most famous deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH.

Again, CON$ refuse to believe any data that goes against their religious dogma no matter who the source.

Ed- why are you using the new hockey stick graph? What happened to the old one that didn't show the MWP and the Little Ice Age? And you say all the lines are independent analysis but you don't really have a clue as to the data involved in making them or the overlap of data or the preferential weighting of specific data sets.
That is the point the canadian economist was making. All we see is the graph and the methodologies are hidden away. Why are some tree rings used and heavily weighted while others are discounted or ignored?

Jus sayin...