StreetScooby 5 #1 July 28, 2011 An article in Forbes: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html Quote 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. Let's hope EPA sees this... I have a friend who's in the oil industry, currently managing projects in the Gulf. The Obama administration has not approved a single permit, at least for their company. Revenue from leases, royalties and taxes from oil drilling used to be the 2nd largest revenue stream, after personal taxes. No longer...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #2 July 28, 2011 No way... that isn't good! We need more global warming, so we can push agendas like cap and trade. Just another way to grab revenue and power for big government. Pull revenue out of the private sector, use it to grow the government, and more importantly the government gravy train. More government workers, more people on the government teat. More loyal little Eichmanns."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnay 0 #3 July 28, 2011 QuoteJames M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute Seems like they just so happen to be good bros with exxon mobil =] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #4 July 28, 2011 Now it will be time to make NASA an evil thing Look. it has already started "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #5 July 28, 2011 The fact that he needs to use the word "alarmist" at least once per paragraph casts doubt on this reporter's objectivity. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #6 July 28, 2011 Science reporting sucks, including this one, but you should read the journal article it was based on. While it does conclude a substantial gap between theory and observed data it is considerably less sensationalist."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #7 July 28, 2011 Gaping Hold? WTH is that?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #8 July 28, 2011 QuoteScience reporting sucks, including this one, but you should read the journal article it was based on. While it does conclude a substantial gap between theory and observed data it is considerably less sensationalist. Thank you... Btw the links to the journal article tend to be a little wonky as they are to a generic online article publishing website that seems to be bogged down, at least at the moment. You can read the abstract here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/ and use the link on that page to get to the full article. You just have to be a little patient with that website. When it comes to information be it on the internet, in print, or on television the vast majority of people seem to be "one-click wonders." Nobody goes further than one click away from their reddit, or digg, or fark, or dropzone.com, or wherever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 July 28, 2011 QuoteThe fact that he needs to use the word "alarmist" at least once per paragraph casts doubt on this reporter's objectivity. If the Foo shits........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 July 28, 2011 >If the Foo shits........ . . . RushMC will post it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 July 28, 2011 Quote >If the Foo shits........ . . . RushMC will post it here. More good news for your alarmism! Quote JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html It seems the Foo is shitting all over your postion on AGW latety And it will only get worse for the alarmists"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #12 July 28, 2011 Quote You can read the abstract here... Thanks for the link. You're right, it's slow. Been waiting 5 minutes now...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #13 July 28, 2011 I guess its progress when the Heartland Institute no longer denies any effect at all, but crows that it's happening slower than some models have predicted.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #14 July 28, 2011 Quote Seems like they just so happen to be good bros with exxon mobil =] I trust that NASA data is as unbiased as you'll get, until proven otherwise. Having worked for Exxon Research for 6 years, I can say with certainty the company is incredibly responsible and full of extremely smart people. Every single project I was involved with, or heard about, emphasized safety, environment, and ROI, in that order.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #15 July 28, 2011 Quote The fact that he needs to use the word "alarmist" at least once per paragraph casts doubt on this reporter's objectivity. Thought the same thing. But, NASA data is NASA data.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 July 28, 2011 QuoteQuote The fact that he needs to use the word "alarmist" at least once per paragraph casts doubt on this reporter's objectivity. Thought the same thing. But, NASA data is NASA data. Yeah, but in this case it's who is interpreting the interpretation of the data. James Taylor works for Heartland, Heartland is in the pocket of big oil. James Taylor is NOT the scientist looking at the data, he's simply the guy putting big oil's spin on it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #17 July 28, 2011 Quote Gaping Hold? WTH is that? Them is TSA words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #18 July 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote The fact that he needs to use the word "alarmist" at least once per paragraph casts doubt on this reporter's objectivity. Thought the same thing. But, NASA data is NASA data. Yeah, but in this case it's who is interpreting the interpretation of the data. James Taylor works for Heartland, Heartland is in the pocket of big oil. James Taylor is NOT the scientist looking at the data, he's simply the guy putting big oil's spin on it. It's not a press release or some in-house study. It's published in a peer-reviewed journal. Funny, somewhere I read that was the gold standard. Have you actually read the study and its conclusions? It's much less sensationalist than the yahoo article reporting it."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 July 28, 2011 I understand the problem: Heartland is an advocacy group. In this sense, it is no different from Greenpeace with the exception that it comes from a different side. Dr. Spencer - co-author - was actually a participant in a keynote debate at the Heartland Conference a couple of weeks ago with Dr. Scott Denning. http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/faculty/denning.php Still, I cannot help but shake my head at the ad hominem methodology used by so many on here who have also not read it. (I can't pull it up. Bad gateway). The science isn't discussed here. Not even the scientist is mentioned (yes, the article lists Dr. Spencer and links to Dr. Lindzen, a couple of notable skeptics). Okay. The published article is by a fellow at Heartland. Okay. So we have an idea where the article is going. And this appears to be a lay interpretation of the paper. Who has read the paper? The abstract? And who will refuse to read it because it was touted by a guy from Heartland? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #20 July 28, 2011 I read it this morning. I guess that was before it started getting so many hits because I had no problems pulling it up."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #21 September 3, 2011 Just in case Forbes is slow getting it's retraction out there, the journal editor at Remote Sensing has retracted the paper and resigned. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 September 3, 2011 The logic for the resignation was interesting. That the paper did not respond to any of the classic arguments. But it seems that the paper's purpose was to respond to arguments of the other side. It's a curious thing to me... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #23 September 6, 2011 From the BBC today: Quote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574 Quote The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published. Quote The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase. Having read the original paper, it's focus is on the raw data showing the earth is losing plenty of heat, much more than AGW models predict. Any discussion of math modeling is deliberately secondary in the paper, as the authors point out the modeling is still too complex. Interesting to note that the actual data is NOT being refuted. The editor is resigning because "the process" wasn't followed.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #24 September 6, 2011 Quote the Foo is shitting all over Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 September 6, 2011 It's actually getting to the point where if raw data does not match the models then they are viewing the data as untrustworthy. Of course, this doesn't mean that even raw data is necessarily "raw." With muvh of the satellite data, the raw data itself has to be processed and derived from the measurements. As stated in other papers, the method one uses to derive the data can impact its values. The thing that is most disheartening to meis the treatment of model predictions as the standard by which data is to be tested. Models are being held up as infallible BECAUSE the data isn't supporting them. (Well, unless data agrees or shows things as "worse" than the models showed.) Models are nothing more than predictions to be tested. Climate scientists - many of them - now view models as the raw data and measurements that disagree are not to be trusted. Of course modelers are "all in" on the models. By the way - I noted the article by Trenberth and others attacking the authors of the paper. The attacks was not the paper but on the authors for such things as errors that need correction. Here I thought that us what science is - finding issues and trying find corrections. Scienctists don't go back to the drawing board. Scientists nevber leave it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
