” Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year and was replaced on the Polar Bear Specialist Group by Dr. Lily Peacock. Further, Dr. Taylor was not re-appointed the to the PBSG by the Canadian government that decided to appoint 3 other people to the PBSG meeting here in Copenhagen. Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement. Dr. Taylor years ago was involved in drafting the rules that govern our Group – we are restricted to 20 members of which 15 are appointed by the 5 nations with polar bears in their range and 5 members are appointed by the Chair. I appointed 5 people that are active in polar bear issues on an ongoing basis.

It was an unfortunate article and it was grossly misleading. For example, I never was a student of Dr. Taylor’s and for him to suggest so is more than a little surprising to me. I have know Dr. Taylor for over 25 years but I can assure you that at no point did he ever supervise me in any capacity.

I am unsure what the intent of Dr. Taylor’s comments were but I can assure you that the PBSG has broad representation. Given the 20 members and my appointing of only 5, it is largely up to the 5 nations to construct the Group that I Chair. The Chair position rotates by nation – my term is up and it will be up to the next Chair to appoint 5 members because my term will end and my membership in the PBSG will end. I will also note that our former Chair, Scott Schliebe of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not attending this meeting. He also retired in 2008 and is no longer active in the field.

I hope this clarifies the situation some. This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor’s views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting.”

When I first saw the shot I knew exactly what these wookies were up to. It was obvious to any observant bear afficionado. They were messing around on a frozen jungle gym. It’s characteristic behavior of higher mammals. They were bored and swam out to it because it was there and felt the need to check it out.

There’s an amazing picture taken through the periscope of a sub that surfaced through the polar ice of a family of curious polar bears sniffing around it and touching the hull. They might be thinking “Wow! This Walrus will feed us for years!” I don’t know how to link to stuff yet….but I saw it on an official US Navy image bank.

Recent? As in 1988 when the IPCC was set up? You do know what the CC in IPCC means don’t you?

tulbobroke – Good point. Yes I do, I’m actually referring to the “media shift” that has occured in recent times (over the last few years) where it is no longer “Global Warming” – But “Climate Change”.

Of course nearly everyone participating in this deabate realises that “Climate Changes”. The distinction is what causes it, natural variation, or human activity.

In the context of my earlier post I was going to the idea that “Climate Change” is not disprovable by events, i.e. is supported by the world getting warmer, cooler, wetter, dryer, etc.

Sorry for being imprecise, and now somewhat long winded…

Gary – still waiting.

Gary – BTW – IMHO the idea that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming is simply a notion that is masquerading as Science, embedded in a Pseudo-Religeous Green Myth, .

The key criteria for judging this are as follows.

[1] The dogmatic assertions based on appeals to authority (Classic Religeous Behaviour).
[2] The ad-hominen attacks (No appeal to Evidence).
[3] The crushing of Dissent (just like Catholic Church in the 1600s vi Heliocentric theory). – Pertinent to the topic of this thread.
[4] Science is willing to engage with contrary evidence – This Green Myth isn’t.

So Gary – how can you tell that you arn’t simply a deluded devotee to a pseudo-religion.

[3] Do you hold with the recent notion that “Global Warming” means “Climate Change”? (I.e. includings cooling…)

Recent? As in 1988 when the IPCC was set up? You do know what the CC in IPCC means don’t you?

Re your column, “Betraying the Planet,” I suggest you do some reading in the science, as opposed to scary newspaper headlines about MIT computer games. A good place to start is the NIPCC compendium, Climate Change Reconsidered, from the recent NIPCC conference in Washington, DC. You can download a complete PDF copy here: http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html

The silly MIT ‘study’ you mention (without citation) was the subject of a couple of entertaining threads on Anthony Watts’s blog (2008 Science Blog of the Year), WattsUpWithThat, here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/global-warming-of-7c-could-kill-billions-this-century/#more-8018

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/#more-8038

Then, you might have a chat with a real climatologist at MIT, Prof. Richard Lindzen.

FYI, the IPCC (on whose Summaries for Policymakers all the recent political activity on ‘climate change’ is based) is a political organization that cherry-picks scientific studies to promote an agenda. What you’ll find if you do the research is that the science is on the side of the climate realists, not the alarmists.

Your attempt to label climate realists ‘traitors’ is ill-founded and obnoxious, and requires an apology.

/Mr Lynn

Craig Moore (08:09:20) :
Slighly OT.
It’s not just scientists, like Dr. Taylor, being denied access to important meetings when they don’t hold the “correct” faith, now we have Paul Krugman using the “treason” descriptor for those that don’t hold the warmist views. See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/028558.html

Here’s a link to the whole article by the insufferable Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1

Remember the MIT model games that made scary headlines? Krugman swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker:

. . . To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

The MIT ‘study’ he mentions (no citation) was discussed here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/global-warming-of-7c-could-kill-billions-this-century/#more-8018

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/#more-8038

It hard to imagine a more egregious column than this one.

/Mr Lynn

Gary – You obviously hold the position that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.”

Could you please answer a couple of questions.

[1] What are the falsification criteria for the above idea?

[2] If a dogmatic, religeous idea was masquerading as science – how would you tell, what would be the criteria that you would use to tell the difference?

[3] Do you hold with the recent notion that “Global Warming” means “Climate Change”? (I.e. includings cooling…)

[4] IF – Man Made Emissions of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Climate Change (instead of just “Global Warming”) – What would be the falsification criteria of that idea?

Hopefully waiting for your answers.

But personally I rather think it has more to do with their respective proximity, mean orbital distance of course, H/T LS, to the sun.

Kindest Regards

No matter how many times I see it, I still love the expression of dismay when I point out Mars also has a 95% CO2 atmosphere and is rather frigid.

The difference, of course, is density.

Hey, someone alert the GCM scientists: they can scrap all that and just go with “basic radiative principles.”

Boy, are their faces going to be red when they realize all the time and effort they wasted.

For the record, the amount of warming attributable to basic radiative principles is about a fifth of what is claimed by GCMs. Apparently Gary either hasn’t heard of feedbacks or doesn’t believe in them.

Actually your rather poor english makes it difficult to follow, however you said “Sorry, Phil, I didn’t… I know enough thermodynamics, climate physics and heat transfer as to say that barbarity. Warmists did.”, which I interpret as your accusing ‘warmists’ of making that statement.

That’s because English is not my mother’s language. I would prefer Hebrew or Spanish, but I have to follow the rules of this blog.

Considering the rubbish you’ve spouted above perhaps that should be reviewed…

Uh! Oh! That rubish is IPCC preferred Arrhenius formula… Heh!

e.g. “If you don’t have a source of energy which heats the carbon dioxide up, the sun for example, the carbon dioxide would be thermally inert. Point.” The sun does not heat the CO2 up.

Yes, you’re right! You’re learning something, at least. The Sun does not heat the CO2 up; the Sun heats the surface up and the surface heats the atmosphere up. However, the CO2 absorbs a small amount of solar SW radiation directly (Lesson No. 2).

Lesson No. 3: The carbon dioxide is not a primary source of energy and has to be heated up by the energy transferred from other systems which can absorb SW radiation.

Hah! I wrote: “By creating energy from nothingness or something like it?” Have you realized it is a question, not an assertion? Need reading classes also?

Actually your rather poor english makes it difficult to follow, however you said “Sorry, Phil, I didn’t… I know enough thermodynamics, climate physics and heat transfer as to say that barbarity. Warmists did.”, which I interpret as your accusing ‘warmists’ of making that statement.

What do you wish I teach you more clearly? Just tell me.

As to your ability to teach anything on this subject, you have yet to demonstrate any capability in that area.

Hah and Hah! I am certified on every one of those disciplines… Sorry, it doesn’t work with me, Phil… :)

Considering the rubbish you’ve spouted above perhaps that should be reviewed, e.g. “If you don’t have a source of energy which heats the carbon dioxide up, the sun for example, the carbon dioxide would be thermally inert. Point.” The sun does not heat the CO2 up.