New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Eddie Teach]

Others have already expressed my thoughts on the piece. 

By others, you mean Strix, right? 

[Josephus]

In other NASA news I think they launched a probe toward Jupiter today.  Suppose to get there in four years.

Traffic is just terrible lately.

[Ideologue]

It's weird how climate change deniers wound up in the same camp as Rapturists and other apocalypse enthusiasts.  I guess anti-science unites a diverse group.

[HisMajestyBOB]

In other NASA news I think they launched a probe toward Jupiter today.  Suppose to get there in four years.

Only 4 more years until New Horizons passes Pluto!

[derspiess]

That the editorial policy on Forbes Magazine's science desk is dominated by religious anti-climate change people.

Religious?

[Neil]

That the editorial policy on Forbes Magazine's science desk is dominated by religious anti-climate change people.

Religious?

People who can't use reason.

[Razgovory]

It's weird how climate change deniers wound up in the same camp as Rapturists and other apocalypse enthusiasts.  I guess anti-science unites a diverse group.

Companies that promote climate deniers also tend to promote other anti-science initiatives since weakening the public grasp of science is ultimately beneficial to them.  I pretty sure that human being affect the climate.  Clear cutting the forests of Europe and other activities involving agriculture have likely changed the climate in some way.  Predicting exactly what is kind of difficult.  Stopping it probably impossible.  We do know that poor land use leads to desertification and this is happening on a large scale.  That's probably not good.

[Viking]

I'm sorry, but an unpublished creationist says global warming is a hoax, by showing, without peer review, that possibly one factors might be different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

So, before I take him seriously I'm going to ask that he gets this research of his published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

[Razgovory]

 

[DontSayBanana]

Honestly, the dude's rebuttal is almost fifteen years out of date; as was mentioned, "alarmist" models these days tend to rely on more-terrestrial, more-easily-quantifiable data such as polar ice temperatures and cap recession rates.  It seriously seems like the last time I heard shrieking about the ozone layer was in the mid-90s.

[Norgy]

I'll have to look into this in six months or so.  The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.

You know, I agree with you. 

And if the findings are indeed sound, that's really good news.

[CountDeMoney]

Forbes magazine, the Penthouse Letters of Wall Street, defends statistics brought to you by NASA, the organization that brought you the Mar Climate Orbiter.

Alrighty then.

[Strix]

I'll have to look into this in six months or so.  The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.

[Tamas]

I'll have to look into this in six months or so.  The article is written in a style that leads me to believe that it isn't credible (overuse of the word 'alarmist', for example), but once the data has been analyzed, we might see some interesting new thinking, and models, especially from scientists who don't have a religious stake in the climate issue.

Well yeah, except that it won't happen. There is way too much money to be made in the doomsday version of global warming. Anything that might suggest that people are not required to switch to overpriced and grossly uneffective "alternate energy sources" (eg. trees burned as "biomass") ASAP, or that it is not that important to buy the various indulgence passes, will not be advertised, nor accepted.

[Razgovory]

Exactly how much money is there to be made in this "Doomsday version of Global Warming"?  Governments are still going to give grants to climate scientists even with out climate change worries.  They still want to be able to accurately predict the weather.  It would seem that being paid to say there is not climate change is more lucrative, as the companies that wish to spread that message have deep pockets and a have great deal more to lose if governments alter regulations based on climate scientists work.  There's probably more money in promoting the status quoe for the elites then being a Cassandra.

If Scientists really wanted to pull the wool over every one's eyes for profit, you'd think they come up with something less ambiguous and more immediately threatening.  Like an empire of mole people coming to enslave us, or giant ants.