East Oregonian | Weekend cold set new record lows

Cold temperatures set several new record lows this weekend, including a low of 22 Saturday in downtown Pendleton that broke a 118 year-old record of 24.

Record lows started falling Thursday with a new low of 20 for Meacham, four degrees cooler than the previous record from 2006, according to information from the Web site for the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Pendleton.

Heppner and Long Creek then set new low temperatures Friday. Heppner hit 29, the coldest that date has seen since 1960 when it was 30; and Long Creek was 21, besting the 1987 record by four degrees.

Saturday set multiple new lows, including the record 22 in downtown Pendleton. John Day dropped to 21, breaking the 1990 record of 23; Meacham's 15 broke the previous low of 20 from 2002; and Mitchell set a record with 21, five degrees cooler than the 2002 record.

Additionally, the top of Airport Hill in Pendleton set a new low of 25; the previous record was 33. And the agricultural experimental station north of Pendleton recorded a low of 18, five degrees cooler than the previous record from 1990.

The cold continued to set records Sunday. Meacham, for the third time in four days, set a record with a low of 15, one degree cooler than the 2002 record. Long Creek and Mitchell again set new records as well Long Creek's low of 21 broke with 1969 record of 25, and Mitchell's 21 broke the 1949 record of 24.

The top of Airport Hill in Pendleton also set another record with 24; the previous record was 28 from 2002. And downtown Pendleton's 21 chilled past the previous record of 25 from 1931.

Also Sunday, two-miles north of Hermiston cooled to 18, breaking the 1953 record of 20.

“The IPPC AR4 is the consensus of 2500 top scientists?”

By Rupert Wyndham

John McLean is the authority on the IPCC, but I believe the following to be correct. In some ways, the most outrageously mendacious claim of all, and for the following reasons:

There aren’t 2500 climate scientists in the world - truly dedicated specialists about 100, per Prof. Siunichi Akasofu. Many of those named disagree with the Reports themselves but, above all, with the SPMs which flow from them. Since the reports of WGs 2 & 3 necessarily flow from the work of WG1, it is essential that this should be robust. It is anything but, as we have seen. SPMs, what 99% of people read - if anything at all, are not written by scientists anyway but by civil servants, inter alia, obsessed by political correctness; mustn’t gainsay 3rd world contributions, etc. Scientifically, they frequently clash with underlying WG reports. Protests are simply ignored - well documented, by the way. The UN for the first time in 2007 released to the web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG1 report of AR4, together with IPCC editors’ responses. 308 reviewers commented on WG1, but only 32 commented on more than three chapters. Only five commented on all 11 chapters. Only half commented on more than one chapter.

It gets worse. The critical chapter is No. 9, in which the near certainty of GW increases being due to human activity is asserted. Only 62 reviewers commented. Of these, 55 had self-evident potential vested interests. Thus, precisely seven could reasonably be seen as impartial. Two rejected the findings of the report altogether, four turned out to have less transparent potential conflicts of interest, and the last made only a single comment on the entire report. Thirty four reviewers’ comments/suggestions were rejected with no reason being given. Enough said!