Has anyone read it? Almost all the information it sites as proof that CO2 is causing GW comes from the IPCC which we know has no scientific basis. I encourage you to read the "Scientific Basis", yes they even label it that, yourself. It reads like a 9th grader wrote it armed with some CO2 propaganda and a sci-fi book.

Readers here that aren't taken in by all this AGW BS should take opportunities to get people thinking about this. A coworker that I did not know commented to me today about how cool it was here today in ATL, he followed up shortly after with a joke about all the SUV's on Mars, Pluto, etc that is causing them to warm. I have to say I was encouraged that others are making it a point to get the word out.

If we do not stop these idiots from convincing the masses that AGW is real we will pay a huge price. Please get the word out. I am over my initial shock and anger at how ignorant a substantial portion of our population is and will do my part. We do not want our children to pay for our decision not to fight a bunch of whiners.

Perhaps if we ignore them long enough while they're whining, they will eventually cry themselves to sleep.

Hmmmm...Was this a report or a reading by a psychic? Awful lot of "may happens" involved in the discussion. I think it is fine that the parks present methods by which to reduce their collective environmental impact but to say that these changes will fix the problem is funny. Also, noted that they indicate that if the CO2 levels are stabilized at 450 ppm by 2100 severe damage will be averted in some areas. I thought that at 450 ppm the world ends or something like that according to AGW theory. And more importantly, how do they decide this?

Oh and the first two pictures are beautiful but probably not caused or in any way affected by the warming of the planet. But they are scary if you want them to be.

I've got a report coming out soon that implicitly states that if a pig had wings it "may" fly.

Question: For fairness, can we get a read on their political stance?

"If we do not stop these idiots from convincing the masses that AGW is real we will pay a huge price."

Alarmist Alert! Alarmist Alert! We got a live one here.

They state in their shock publication that the caribou were found as far south as Mississippi at the end of the last ice age. Why did they move north when there weren't any SUVs in Mississippi at the time? How could the earth have warmed since the last ice age without human intervention? These are the questions that I want answered.

NGW Steve, I, too, are a ATLer. Ain't it great being a southern hick? I was thinking just a week or so ago about how nice it would be to get back to cool Hotlanta after spending a miserable blistering weekend in southern Ohio. I wasn't and am not disappointed.

Well, Paul, the causes of ice ages remain controversial. The general consensus is that the most relevant cause is changes in Earth's atmosphere; there is evidence that greenhouse gas levels have fallen at the start of ice ages and fallen at the ends. William Ruddiman proposed the overdue-glaciation theory, which states that the interglacial period we are in is only kept from ending by the greenhouse gasses produced by human activity. Other causes of ice ages include changes in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cylcels); the positions of continents; and changes in solar output. The latter, as well as Milankovitch cycles, are generally believed to be to weak to cause ice ages by themselves.

It should be noted that due to completely unfounded "scientific" worries on overgrazing, the Yellowstone Park buffalo population was culled almost to extinction, down to 300 animals or so, until somebody in 1968 understood the fear of "what may _possibly_ happen" should _not_ take precedence over the problem of "what is _actually_ happening".

Hopefully somebody will remember that lesson..

Glaciers in the national parks of Alaska as well as North Cascades and Mount Rainier National Parks will continue to disappear;

As they have been for the last 20,000 years, when glaciers covered most of North America to a depth of 3,000 feet.

Two thirds of the observed glacial melt in Alaska's Glacier Bay occurred prior to 1880, before the internal combustion engine had been invented.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1217_alaskaglaciers.html
when European explorers first sailed along the Alaska coastline in the 1790s, they noted only a small embayment along the coastline. By the 1880s the glacier that filled what became known as Glacier Bay had retreated, leaving a bay that extended nearly 40 miles (64 kilometers). The glacier has continued to retreat and today Glacier Bay extends more than 60 miles (96 kilometers) into the Alaskan coastline.

Another thing many people do not realize is that many of the glaciers in the Glacier National Park have only been around since the Little Ice Age. Ditto for almost all of the lower elevation glaciers in the Alps.

there is evidence that greenhouse gas levels have fallen at the start of ice ages and fallen at the ends.

Well, anonymous, analyses of both the Dome Concordia and the Vostok ice cores show that indeed there does appear to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature during the past 650,000 years or so. However, this correlation shows that CO2 lags behind temperature by at least 800 years. I also notice that RealClimate.org does quite a bit of squirming to try to explain why this doesn't mean what it looks like. Also, please explain to me that if CO2 is the driver, why methane is in perfect correlation with CO2 and not temperature (methane lags approximately 800 years behind temperature, too).

My theory is that those "other" causes are the most important and greenhouse gases are minor or totally irrelavent in causing the poor caribou to be driven so far north during the last 12,000 years or so.

Here in Ontario the provincial government just launched a new website where you can look at a map of your area for normal temps. and precip. then add or reduce the CO2 levels then click a future time period and it will show you the temp. and precip. changes that are expected:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/ccmapbrowser/climate.html
After you choose a map, this disclaimer is in fine print at the bottom:
This map is intended for the purposes of illustration and discussion only. It shows one of a range of possible future projections of Ontario's climate. Predictions of future climate may vary from those shown here due to uncertainty in the rate of global release of greenhouse gases due to human activity, unknown or inaccurately quantified feedback responses releasing/absorbing greenhouse gases from land and water ecosystems, and shortcomings associated with climate modelling. Do not rely on this map for legal administrative purposes. This map may contain cartographic errors or omissions.
As Darren points out, anyone, even governments, can make websites to "prove" that pigs can fly. At least the Ontario website puts the CYA disclaimer in there, on their lawyers advice no doubt.

More Global Warming nonsense. These weather guys cannot accurately predict what is going to happen NEXT week (heck, they've been wrong 2 years in a row on Hurricane activity), yet they have the arrogance to tell us that the world is going to liquify from excessive heat if Man does not do something to "combat global warming."

Give me a break and get a real job.

BTW, the ice caps are melting on Mars as we speak. How is that happening if man does not live on that planet? So much for human activity causing global warming.

Incidentally, any moron can pick up a history book and read how England was once much warmer than it is now (heck, it was a wine exporter during Roman times and during the warming period that preceded the "Little Ice Age."

These weather guys need a real job.

>> These weather guys cannot accurately predict what is going to happen NEXT week

You must be referring to weather.com. I got tired of their inaccuracies, so I switched to AccuWeather, and haven't been steered wrong yet.

I planned a ski vacation last winter at Lake Placid, based on AccuWeather's 15 day forecast. These guys got it right!

These folks from State College, PA are really good. Besides, the wackos at weather.com are spewing AGW propaganda.

We should write letters to our cable stations demanding that they replace TWC with AccuWeather. No AGW propaganda, just the facts.

Good sucking-up, Gunnar. Maybe Accuweather will give you a job to program their "Real Feel" algorithm.

Wipe that brown off your nose.

Alexander,
Forcasting weather is completely different than forcasting climate. The accuracy of what the "weather guys" predict has nothing to do with climate.

The weather has nothing to do with the climate, What an idiotic coment. Climate and weather are one in the same. Climate is the average weather in a location over a long period of time. The climate is determined by the weather..

If we cant model the weather what so ever then we have very little chance at making accurate models that determine the climate. Models are flawed by large amounts of inaccurate data.. There are dozens of climate models that show no armageddon of global warming. The models have been skewed for political and monetary gain.

I actually think accuweather should be ashamed to have jumped on the bandwagon, cant you survive with just a great weather site.

Mark,
Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said. All I meant was that forcasting the weather in 50 years is impossible with our current models, while accurately modeling the climate in 50 years is feasible. Yes, of course climate is based on past weather; however, the two are completely different systems.

Gunner: We should write letters to our cable stations demanding that they replace TWC with AccuWeather. No AGW propaganda, just the facts.

Did that months ago after Dr. Heidi(?, must be I always remember Fleiss to go with it) did her call to suppress all scientific dissent by delicensing all meteorologists who didn't toe the AGW line.

The biggest problem with Accuweather comes from then trying to be "fair and balanced" on the subject, which means they toss value judgements out the door. After all, to be "fair and balanced" in the modern sence means you must try all the apple pies, even the ones that looks, smell and feel like b*llsh*t (more usually ch*ckensh*t since it isn't even worth a bull).

Nothing wrong with having an open enough mind to at least do the look and sniff test, but when your mind is so "open" that your brains fall out....

>> trying to be "fair and balanced" on the subject

kamatu, you have a good point that averaging all available opinions is not a good scientific approach. After all, the average between truth and falsehood is half-truth-half-lies. Like poison in the well, you're still left with lies.

However, I really don't see why they need to take a position. They are being paid to concentrate on the weather.

>> forcasting the weather in 50 years is impossible with our current models, while accurately modeling the climate in 50 years is feasible. Yes, of course climate is based on past weather; however, the two are completely different systems.

Anonymous, the two are not completely different systems, but different scientific approaches are required. One is not an extension of the other. Weather focuses on general atmospheric circulation, and in the time scales of weather prediction, it is appropriate to consider the thermodynamic state of various important components as constant, namely solar dynamics, ocean thermodynamics, geological activity, etc. The lack of long range forecasting accuracy is not due to lack of skill, or due to lack of sophistication in "current models", but rather, is inherent in the chaotic systems involved. 1000 years from now, we may only be slightly better at predicting weather.

However, climate prediction cannot consider these other components as constants. At first, it might seem easier, since chaotic atmospheric circulation can be ignored on larger timescales. However, more chaotic systems are introduced.

The problem with today's climate scientists is that they seem to think that predicting the climate is just an extension of weather forecasting. They use general circulation models and consider important components as constants, including the sun.

"After all, to be "fair and balanced" in the modern sence means you must try all the apple pies, even the ones that looks, smell and feel like b*llsh*t (more usually ch*ckensh*t since it isn't even worth a bull)."

I agree. That's why providing articles from 'scientists' who diverge from the scientific consensus to make names for themselves, just for the sake of being "balanced," is wrong.

For once, we agree, Kamu.