New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard It is also a catch-all to say, "See, we were right." no matter what happens. I lost my website, so I can't link the photos of snow in April I had posted before. The thing is, despite climate scientist's claims, these kinds of fluctuations have been happening since I can remember. I can remember working in shorts and a t-shirt in January, and needing a coat in May, all in Kansas, and all before all the alarmist science that runs rampant where climate is concerned. What ever happened to the "worst year for hurricanes ever" that we were supposed to have due to "climate change"? I don't recall there being an abnormally large number of hurricanes since Katrina. Did I miss something? We haven't had an abnormal number of tornadoes here, despite claims that we would. However, climate scientists can point at the tornadoes we have had and say "See, we were right.", despite the fact that there have always been tornadoes in KS. I was in at least one hurricane when I lived in Florida, in the 60's. They have generalized their science enough that any severe storm that comes up can support their claims, and frankly, that's not science. What I find ironic is that one can bash the source of the article in the OP as having an agenda, all the while ignoring the agendas of science that supports the belief that mankind is the sole cause of climate change. Who pays those scientists? People like Al Gore? How much money has he made being a doomsayer? The truth is somewhere in the middle of what the extremist on either side would have us believe. We can't help but affect our world, but I sincerely doubt that measuring the length of time it takes a person to blink comparatively is really a good standard to measure climate change against. Afterall, at one time in the not too distant past, the place I live now was an ocean floor. As far as we know, there weren't any people driving around in gas guzzler cars that cause the icecaps to melt, so it must have occured naturally. Let's not forget that at another point in geological history, the ice cap extended to at least as far south as I live, and according to a special I watched on the Discovery or Science Channel, at one time the whole planet was a ball of ice. There weren't any people around to do that either. Conservation is a good thing. Trying to terrify the masses into doing it with poor science is something else entirely.

Your points are undestood but I fear, misplaced. When suspecting an agenda, consider these basic questions.

Who stands to lose more money by global warming, the people who vehemently deny it or those who agree on it?

What would people have to gain by pretending? There are easier ways to pull the wool over people's eyes and make money. Religion or politics, for example. Al Gore has made a fraction from this of what Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee have. If he wanted to cash in on "doomsaying" he coulda just gotten a show on Fox like Mike or Glenn did or stayed in politics. No movies, no research, no writing papers. Environmentalism is largely non-profit.

The best minds in the world have agreed upon this. Science is united on the issue. The only people who are against it are those who feel it somehow bleeds over into their religious views or those who stand to lose money by accepting it. But science has already moved on a long time ago, into looking at ways to sort the issue rather than caring if some people don't believe it. Science does not need to take a poll making sure every single person in the world fully grasps their discoveries. They just get to work making more.

And casually calling something "poor science" may well be a valid term if maybe one or two crackpot scientists are agreed on something. But when the entire body of science throughout on the planet support and agree on it...it doesn't make you look so good vs. the most brilliant minds of our time.

P.S. IDK what you're talking about the worst year of hurricanes. I do recall one period where we definately had a huge spike in them...was it last year or the year before? I posted here about if iirc. But it was idle chatter, I had no raw data, just noting that there seemed to be more than i've ever observed at any given time.

[Timber Loftis]

Urging precaution is not "going into a tizzy" or being extreme. The fact that the cliff we thought we saw in front of us turned out to just be a steep downhill does not prove that we should have stepped on the gas pedal.

The original article has been well debunked, so I won't go there. Quite simply, some choice and incomplete bits of NASA data were taken and put to an analysis that backed a pre-determined and biased conclusion. (Notably, the original article also used every fallacy of argumentation that Azred (I think) pointed out in his rebuttal of some of the other posts herein.)

But, let's presume the facts are as the article stated -- let us say that the climate models use a rate of heat loss from the Earth that is too low or incorrect, and that the Earth does vent heat in the face of increasing GHGs faster than we thought. I have a few points about that, presuming its truth:

1. A model trying to predict what our fate might be when the actual existence of the planet might be at risk is not incorrect for using conservative numbers. In all environmental work, until the facts are known with exactness, we work off "conservative" data inputs (i.e. the most environmentally protective ones).

2. The fact that the Earth is dealing with its rising temperature by running a fever and venting heat more quickly than it previously did does not make me think all is well. In fact, when a person runs a fever, we have fair cause for concern. The fact that the planet is adapting to meet increasing demands that we, the organisms living upon it, place on its systems does not mean we have license to chug full speed ahead without fear of recourse.

3. For those in the crowd that hates all people who believe in GW as loonies, please consider this. About 92.45% of the things we advocate doing to alleviate the GW problem are THINGS WE OUGHT BE DOING ANYWAY. We can no longer continue to live off the dirty, hazardous burnings of dinosaur remains and think of ourselves as modern or advanced. It's a horrible, inefficient fuel whose time should end. In all its forms, burning of it puts volatile organics and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons into the air, water, and earth, as well as the infamous quad-fecta of known carcinogens known collectively as BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethelyne, xylene). Additionally, no intelligent creature should run an engine that wastes 40% or more of the potential energy input of the fuel it burns. The combustion engine, as best we can make it, is still a rickety shoddy old thing in terms of wasted resource inputs and hazardous icky outputs.

[machinehead]

More reactions to Spencers new paper.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...r/#more-282584
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ture-feedback/

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he wrote that on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis 3. For those in the crowd that hates all people who believe in GW as loonies, please consider this. About 92.45% of the things we advocate doing to alleviate the GW problem are THINGS WE OUGHT BE DOING ANYWAY. We can no longer continue to live off the dirty, hazardous burnings of dinosaur remains and think of ourselves as modern or advanced. It's a horrible, inefficient fuel whose time should end. In all its forms, burning of it puts volatile organics and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons into the air, water, and earth, as well as the infamous quad-fecta of known carcinogens known collectively as BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethelyne, xylene). Additionally, no intelligent creature should run an engine that wastes 40% or more of the potential energy input of the fuel it burns. The combustion engine, as best we can make it, is still a rickety shoddy old thing in terms of wasted resource inputs and hazardous icky outputs.

We are already doing these things here--our country has done our part to keep our room clean. The "developing" nations, though, do not have the laws and restrictions in place that we have so they continue to trash the planet and you will never see environmentalists marching on Beijing demanding reforms (at least not in this century).

*************
No, I will not cite any articles I have read to back up my claims. As I have noted for every scientific study I can produce that says "x is happening" someone else can produce a study that says "x is not happening", which leaves us with the question "which studies are correct?", a question we cannot answer.

Another problem with climate research is this--the researchers do not consider any other possible source or cause of any warming trend rather than defaulting to "human beings must be the cause".

Just for the sake of argument, let us presume that the Earth is warming up. What if the Earth is warming up to where it is supposed to be normally? That would not be attributable to us.

Thankfully, I haven't heard a lot of people crying "global warming" even though we have had, what, 40+ days of over-100 degree (39 C) temperatures here in Texas? I think people are finally beginning to believe a simple truth--summer is supposed to be hot.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Azred The "developing" nations, though, do not have the laws and restrictions in place that we have so they continue to trash the planet and you will never see environmentalists marching on Beijing demanding reforms (at least not in this century).

A few things here. First, the wrongs of our neighbor do not excuse our own, that should be obvious. Second, China has more GHG reducing projects going on atm than we do -- they actually are leading the charge on this matter and have certain cities that are 100% GHG free. It's catch-as-can atm, but they do have examples we should follow. Yes, much of the Chinese landscape is still dominated by gray, dirty, smoke-covered buildings. They are, simply, behind us a bit still. But we cannot ignore their few cities where they have enacted a GHG program that sorta, actually, puts any efforts we have made to shame.

Whether or not China, as a whole, will be made to follow the world into a better GHG scenario remains to be seen, and is of course a question. But, we cannot ignore the isolated strives they have made to do us a one-up on the one-upsmanship scale.

Another problem with climate research is this--the researchers do not consider any other possible source or cause of any warming trend rather than defaulting to "human beings must be the cause".

Frankly, human sources are the only ones we have much control over. We know we produce a lot of carbon, and we know scientifically that carbon holds heat. It's not rocket science to say we help contribute.

Just for the sake of argument, let us presume that the Earth is warming up. What if the Earth is warming up to where it is supposed to be normally? That would not be attributable to us.

Let us not presume where the Earth is supposed to be. Let us try to keep our hands off, if we can, and see where the Earth goes.

Thankfully, I haven't heard a lot of people crying "global warming" even though we have had, what, 40+ days of over-100 degree (39 C) temperatures here in Texas? I think people are finally beginning to believe a simple truth--summer is supposed to be hot.

Indeed it is. But it's been hotter lately than before. We've had more 90+ days in Chicago this year than ever before. But, it's not just a localized thing, it's a global thing.

Again, I only advocate precaution. We should try to keep our hands off, and see where nature/Earth takes us. Solar flares come and go, as does "el nina" and "el nino." I'm just saying we should try to minimalize our impact as best we can. And, we do have options for doing so. (q.v. my postings regarding how the combustion engine is way too inefficient for us to accept it scientifically at this point in time)

[Azred]

You and I are actually on the same page on this particular issue; we differ only on our opinions of the magnitude of the impact of human activity.

I haven't seen anything about China's air quality initiatives so I will have to look into that.

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Let us not presume where the Earth is supposed to be. Let us try to keep our hands off, if we can, and see where the Earth goes.

What if the Earth really does warm up, though, and does things like melt polar ice caps on its own? Would that disprove human activity as the cause of any climate change?

[Luvian]

Originally Posted by SecretMaster I shy away from policy decisions and politics because it is so mucked up with different idealogies. I can understand the hostility towards legislation that tries to curb CO2 emissions, because it ultimately becomes a question of "economic growth vs. the environment". Most people do not want to hear "we're going to weaken our economy deliberately."

I find that the people opposed to Global Warming are really just opposed on political grounds.

Global Warming itself doesn't matter, it's just another battlefield. It could be about anything. It's always about "secret agendas" and "limiting rights". It's THOSE things, real or not, they really disagree with. When they say "Global Warming doesn't exist" what they really mean is "I disagree with legislations." And because of that it is impossible for them to agree under any circumstance. That would mean betraying their politics.

It's about politics to them and discussing politics with a partisan is useless. They don't want a discussion, they want a platform to spread their party.

But if you really want to discuss Global Warming you're better off forgetting about the "real or not" part and talking about the proposed policies. It's the real source of the discussion, backward as that may be.

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by Luvian I find that the people opposed to Global Warming are really just opposed on political grounds. Global Warming itself doesn't matter, it's just another battlefield. It could be about anything. It's always about "secret agendas" and "limiting rights". It's THOSE things, real or not, they really disagree with. When they say "Global Warming doesn't exist" what they really mean is "I disagree with legislations." And because of that it is impossible for them to agree under any circumstance. That would mean betraying their politics. It's about politics to them and discussing politics with a partisan is useless. They don't want a discussion, they want a platform to spread their party. But if you really want to discuss Global Warming you're better off forgetting about the "real or not" part and talking about the proposed policies. It's the real source of the discussion, backward as that may be.

Yep. Ultimately people have an issue with the political side of the issue. I don't have a stance really when it comes to political stuff because I really don't know. I hate politics, and I'm much more comfortable talking about stuff related to the field I'm in, which has little room for bullshit (despite what Azred and Co. claim).

[Azred]

I have no idea what field that might be. The only fields of which I am aware where bovine fecal matter is not only allowed but expected are farm/ranch fields.

Although I do disagree that climate data shows any man-made warming trend--because there are too many unknowns and insufficient data with which to make conclusions with any certainty--I do agree that the debate usually centers on policies and politics. We should not be passing legislation based on faulty/inconclusive research or emotional appeals ("save the polar bears").

[robertthebard]

Frankly, I wouldn't care who was funding the "research". I'm not overly political, and politics certainly doesn't motivate my view point. I delete more "Obama is trash" type emails from my mom than I click spam when going through my emails, some of them w/out even reading. I have come down against policies of both of the recent presidents, and frankly, I will continue to do so, if I disagree with them, even if I did vote for them. The biggest problem I see is that people have forgotten how to think for themselves, and if that's politically motivated, I'm not going to try to fix it.

I have turned off perfectly good movies as soon as they start with the preaching of GW as the cause of a disaster. A theme that's been all too common lately. That's the doom and gloom scenario that I keep referring to. However, it's not like I just waste resources, and try to use things up because they are there. My car gets 35ish MPG, and I put $10.00 worth of gas in it a month, the only things running in my house now are a couple of fans, my computer and my a/c. There are no lights on anywhere in my house, despite how dark I have to keep the place to minimize my migraines.

As I've said before, conservation is good, and I do my part. However, and we can hash and rehash whether it's happening or not, scaring the populace with the "green" agenda isn't right. That agenda truly is green too, since everyone doing the research is getting paid, and they are getting paid to find exactly what they are finding. If they supported articles like what's in the OP, they'd be out of work. However, if there's any doubt that doom and gloom are a tool of the green agenda, just check out the ScyFy Channel's regular programming schedule, I'm sure you won't be hard pressed to find "Nature is a Mother" days, and can see in those movies just how financially motivated GW really is.