New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[Micah Foehammer]

Okay these are funny ..... LOL

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard ...and yet, I have been assured time and time again, in this very thread, that they are in full agreement. I have been told that I can, if I doubt that, start calling all the major universities, and do the research to prove that they aren't, despite the fact that this very thread exists because somebody didn't agree. Good, bad or indifferent, the source was shot down as "having an agenda".

Omg RTB, you're still beating that drum? Certainly, if I had any fears about you uncovering hidden agendas or information, I would not be encouraging you down this path. But alas here we are and I've still yet to see you lift a finger. And you don't have to call all major universities, maybe just some. And they dont even have to be universities like I stated. As I said earlier I also took the time to come up with a solution for your long-distance issue - email. I'd have thought you'd jump at the opportunity, what gives?

Unless of course this was just an excuse to not do the work...

What am I missing here, are you actually interested in this subject or just bullshitting, lol? Is this maybe a veiled political thing or somethin'? If so, just say it and I will stop encouraging you. A challenge like this seperates the serious people from the non-serious. Wouldn't you like to be viewed as credible rather than just arguing over something that you refuse to become informed about?

Personally, I'm at a loss as to why you wouldn't jump at this. Again, the only thing I can think if is that you're not too concerned about the truth to begin with. Is this maybe a case of voiceing doubts with no interest in quelling them?

As Micah said, the workings of the entire thing are not fully understood by the scientists themselves. It begins with a premise of (sane) skepticism and works to prove or disprove a theory. They do not claim to have all the answers. That is why it is called science rather than religion. But this is another reason I would like you to talk to people about it. They can explain the premise of it to you maybe even by using examples etc. From how they predict the weather to how they track DNA sequence predicatability. And then maybe you can gain a broader understanding of science in general, its models and scales, its practice overall. Why pass up the opportunity to open your mind and increase your knowledge?

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer And yet this entire thread started by you championing Roy Spencer's paper as proof of that. Spencer starts from a position opposing global warming, takes data, builds a model to support the hypothesis, and then claims "Hey look, I was right." Isn't that exactly what you claim that you object to? But since Spencer agrees with your premise, he must be right and the other scientists wrong. As Secret Master said earlier, it's better to take Spencer's paper and evaluate it on it's own merits, and judge it accordingly.

Of course that is what I did--people like Spencer are not trying to get politicians to pass legislation, though, and that is the difference.

Climate change believers refuse to even consider the alternate possibility that the warming trend indicated by various graphs could be a completely natural cycle, the Earth warming up to where it is supposed to be as it has done many times in the past. Their claim is that human beings are the only cause and that is not a conclusion that can be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.

SecretWarrior, the scientists are claiming that they know all the answers on the subject of climatology, otherwise they wouldn't be predicting global disaster.

This is not an argument that anyone is ever going to win. We all know that none of us are going to convince anyone else to change their mind. That being said, it isn't a conspiracy theory or straw man to suggest that an alternate hypothesis is possible or plausible.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Azred Of course that is what I did--people like Spencer are not trying to get politicians to pass legislation, though, and that is the difference.

Wait, I thought that was exactly what Spencer's job was. He works for a think tank that gins up "science" for lobbyists to use to persuade legislation. It's what he did when he put forth "science" that second hand smoke isn't harmful, and it's what he's doing now.

Climate change believers refuse to even consider the alternate possibility that the warming trend indicated by various graphs could be a completely natural cycle, the Earth warming up to where it is supposed to be as it has done many times in the past. Their claim is that human beings are the only cause and that is not a conclusion that can be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.

That's wrong again. Of course the world has warming and cooling trends, and these climatologists study information regarding past ice ages and other climate trends and try to make comparisons to the present. I challenge you to find a credible scientist who would try to convince us that the earth has no natural warming and cooling trends... it's kinda hard for one to escape the existence of ice ages.

SecretWarrior, the scientists are claiming that they know all the answers on the subject of climatology, otherwise they wouldn't be predicting global disaster.

Again, any reference you can find to someone who is credible and claims to have all the answers would be... interesting. At best, it seems to me that they have one certainty, to wit that there is a warming trend going on, but none I have seen claim any sort of omniscience on the matter.

This is not an argument that anyone is ever going to win.

Well, certainly not with 3 back-to-back straw man arguments, that much is clear.

[Azred]

I suppose, then, that I should ask the other pertinent question:

suppose human beings are, indeed, causing climate destabilization. Why should I care? This isn't a pollution issue; rather, one of a warmer planet. People will adapt to the new situation or they will not; the choice is theirs. In short, even if human beings are doing everything that many people claim it won't be the end of the world.

[SpiritWarrior]

Exactly my point earlier. You needn't. The people that do care are already on it.

While there could be something to be said for hoping for the best and preparing the the worst, if you are adamant that the worst will not come to pass, then you've gone as far as you can go with this. The work will continue with or without.

[Azred]

Fair enough.

There are more pressing concerns that will negatively impact us all sooner than any climate problems might, namely the economy.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Azred suppose human beings are, indeed, causing climate destabilization. Why should I care? This isn't a pollution issue; rather, one of a warmer planet. People will adapt to the new situation or they will not; the choice is theirs.

People can move around and live in temperatures from well below freezing to cookable desert heat.

Plants cannot. If a forest needs to migrate northward to follow changing climate, it's movement rate is measured in feet per year. Domesticated crops could be moved a bit faster with the aid of people, but there really aren't enough of us to get out there and save all the plant life that would be at risk, assuming we even had the foresight to try to do it. Again, this is only one of many variables, probably too many to count. But we have found previously that ecosystems are both hardier than we would expect in some respects and more fragile than we would expect in others.

[Azred]

That doesn't sound too bad, all things considered. It will also make things more interesting--what is life without a little change thrown in to liven up things?

[Chewbacca]

Debunker Debunked.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...m_campaign=rss

Excerpts:

Last month, we described how a paper that compared climate models to satellite readings had been blown out of proportion by a hype machine that was soon claiming the paper would "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." However, even a cursory glance at the paper revealed that its claims were far more modest; other scientists who discussed the work indicated that problems with its analysis were already widely recognized. Now, the editor-in-chief of the journal that published the paper has considered these criticisms—and chosen to resign. The paper in question, by noted contrarian Roy Spencer, uses an extremely simple model in an attempt to separate the factors that force the climate from those that act as feedback to changes in the climate. A number of climate scientists, however, wrote about how the model had been simplified to the point of being useless (one of the more detailed examples comes from BYU geochemist Barry Bickmore). These criticisms, however, haven't generally made it into the peer reviewed literature, the lone exception cited in the resignation being a paper that's not a direct critique of Spencer's work. Those same criticisms were reiterated once Spencer published his most recent paper.

The issue here wasn't the controversy; it was that the paper was most probably wrong. "The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view..." Wagner argues, "but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents." And, in Wagner's opinion, papers that contain methodological errors or erroneous conclusions are supposed to be caught by peer review and shouldn't be published. Since one was published on his watch, he's resigning. But not before taking a parting shot at the media. Writing that he would "like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements," he specifically cites the University of Alabama, Huntsville press release and Spencer's writings on his website as part of the exaggeration; the Forbes article that triggered our own coverage, along with a follow-up from Fox News, also get singled out. No one result created our current understanding of the climate system or provided evidence that it's being forced by greenhouse gasses; as a result, Wagner argues, no single result is likely to tear it down.