Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
still no Mott? Odd
Hes busy telling lies on other threads at the moment....still no Mott? Odd
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
I dont really give a shit about the global warming debate but I know some of you do.
Naaaaaw....I just laugh at you anti-science, anti-intellectual types like you who are pretty clueless about how the scientific method works. To state the obvious, Grind gets it one hell of a lot more then you do.I am sure our resident 'scientist' Mott will be along to once again 'laugh' at those of us who questioned the almighty 'consensus'.
Excellent Grind. This is the first time I've seen on this debate, on this site, where someone actually posted a link to peer reviewed data countering current climate change positions that actually sited peer reviewed data and not some crank mining engineer from Montana or the Petroleum Institute of America.
Naaaaaw....I just laugh at you anti-science, anti-intellectual types like you who are pretty clueless about how the scientific method works.
To state the obvious, Grind gets it one hell of a lot more then you do.
The differenc is, you see, that Grind referenced a source to peer reviewed science. You reference political lobbyist and then wonder why those with real science back grounds laugh at you.
Hmmmmm, Grind.....I may have spoke to soon. I made my comments before trying to look at the peer reviewed data in the report that you linked.
I should have known that the right wing spin doctors at Forbes and a right wing lobby group, such as, The Heartland Institute would interject their bias into the report.
This from the actuall peer reviewed study.
It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations.
So much for the hyperbole of "data blows gaping holes..."
If you had read Grinds 2nd post you would have seen that already.
ROFLMAO.... that is quite comical. Asking 'scientists' to SHOW their data, to actually SHOW their calculations, to ANSWER questions on WHY their models were falling apart.... THAT is part of the scientific method you dolt. Hiding the data, the calculations and shouting consensus goes AGAINST the scientific method you idiot.
Unlike you, I actually SUPPORT the scientific method and don't simply run around shouting consensus because a bunch of moronic politicians told me to.
You are full of crap moron. Tell me, when the PEER reviewed piece by the climatologist from the University of Delaware was put forth by me, what did you do then? When I asked time and again for consensus idiots like you and Cypress to explain HANSON's own statement that there had been no significant warming since 1995.... WHAT did you do then moron?
I doubt that Hansen ever said that, although I know that Phil Jones has said that although there is a warming trend it is not statistically significant since 1995.
Excellent Grind. This is the first time I've seen on this debate, on this site, where someone actually posted a link to peer reviewed data countering current climate change positions that actually sited peer reviewed data and not some crank mining engineer from Montana or the Petroleum Institute of America.