New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Synchronicity said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Superfreak said:
I am sure our resident 'scientist' Mott will be along to once again 'laugh' at those of us who questioned the almighty 'consensus'.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are SO full of shit. You supported that idiot Cypress every time he denounced peer reviewed scientists due to 'no one ever heard of that dude' or 'that UNIVERSITY is a laughing stock' blah blah blah.

You are only now backtracking because more and more evidence keeps coming up to show you just how fucking retarded you and the other consensus shouters were for believing the 'science' that you 'understood'.

How many times did you mock me for asking why there was no significant warming from 1998-2008 (which at the time was the previous ten years)? How many times did you ridicule me for questioning the idiots that YOU supported that continually REFUSED to release data, continually REFUSED to discuss the issue, that continually stomped their feet and shouted 'consensus'???

Poor little Mott... I know it is going to be a bitter crow to eat
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Naaaaaw....I just laugh at you anti-science, anti-intellectual types like you who are pretty clueless about how the scientific method works.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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..."
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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..."
Click to expand...

If you had read Grinds 2nd post you would have seen that already.
 
Praetor Decimus said:
If you had read Grinds 2nd post you would have seen that already.
Click to expand...

You are assuming too much. Mott the scientist doesn't read. He is spoon fed talking points. Give him a minute and he will reference who actually pointed the above out to him.... perhaps we should just google search the phrase 'right wing spin doctors at Forbes and a right wing lobby group, such as, The Heartland Institute would interject their bias into the report. ' and we can pinpoint who spoon fed him that line.
 
Superfreak said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
THREAD SUCCESS
9VuEJ.gif
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...

liar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top