New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Just for the record, I'm making fun of the UN not trying to go after you personally.

 

Let me suggest this- rather than waiting until people post what you want them to before you weigh in, why not post better to begin with and perhaps change the direction of the debate.

 

Your link doesn't really talk about meteorologists. It's just a link to some climatologist contrarians. It doesn't cite a single organized scientific body of any credibility. I certainly won't deny that there are scientists who disagree with the general consensus.

Out of curiosity, however, I did find an article that does support your claim about meteorologists: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

But it also had some interesting counter points:

 

Mook I already acknowledged "climate change" as reality. They simply can't provide the historical context I have. There is no wiggle room at all for your position, you can't even do anything about it.

Global Warming is based off 50 year computer models, this is a fact. Almost all this "research" only goes back to 1856 at best, mine doesn't. A real disadvantage.

Edit- with all due respect. I like going after the media real hard, but no one here in particular. Also, yeah the meteorologist thing was just prior knowledge from a Senator I heard. No biggie either way. :O

 

For those who believe that human activity is a significant cause of global warming, exactly what would you advocate we do to reduce that impact? Please be specific.

 

The article is pretty crap-tastic, Denny. It is inflammatory and biased which is more likely to gain people's attentions than the actual study. I think you see more interested in the claims of the study than the credibility of the authors so I'll help steer the debate in that direction.

First, In 1896 (before Al Gore’s father was born) Dr. Svente Arrhenius puplished a paper called ”On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”

It demonstrates quite conclusively the causation connection between in a quantitative fashion. Dr. Arrhenius shows that for each two fold increase in carbon dioxide, the average temperature of the earth’s surface will increase a few degrees. Since then, the concentration of carbon dioxide has in fact increased and the mean temperature of the surface of the earth has increased in pretty much the way Dr. Arrhenius said it would. Thus was born the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)

So the starting point is that ACC is actually occurring.

Second, the authors the assume that ACC Change is real and occurring. The very first sentence in the abstract says:

The authors are trying develop a model that will accurately match observed changes with projected changes. So far no one has succeeded. The authors are merely attempting to where the difference between the models and reality are occurring.

In other words, the current ability of both ground based and space based remote sensors cannot adequately measure signals generated by “radiative feedback”, i.e. the signals are *masked*.

So the problem is NOT with the ACC but the ability of current remote sensors to measure “radiative feedback” which is shown by the appropriate analysis (lag regression analysis).

Rather than some fatal flaw in the ACC, this is an excellent example of how scientist make a hypothesis to explain data (in this case in the form of a model), test it, and when the data does not match the projections, attempt to understand the differences. This is how science is suppose to work

 

You're changing the debate. Most people will agree with the idea that climate change is real.

The science is absolutely inconclusive. They can't make an accurate predictions with their models.

This article suggests that nobody actually knows how much of an effect it has / will have. So playing Chicken Little over highly inaccurate models seems a little absurd.

 

haha, nice.