I don't know what to think about "global warming" or "climate change" or now "global cooling (perhaps??)".
What I do know is that the climate is fluid and that there are changes every year (seasons), changes per region, and changes over time greater than
the fluctuations of a year. I know that our carbon emissions are only one part of pollution.
I know that carbon dioxide (from you) and carbon monoxide (from your car) are not one in the same, but I know that both are deadly in the right
quantity and context (why do we poke holes in a jar when we catch a lizard?). Even water is deadly in the right quantity or context (drowning, over
consumption in a short period). We may not see sea level rise like in "The Day after Tomorrow", but I know that glaciers are receding. I realize
that ice on water melting does not affect sea level, but that it does affect eco-systems and the chemical make-up of our oceans, which are already
overfished, and less fish and more of certain types of algae can lead to acidity changes, which can also affect the temperature of the oceans (see my
discussion below on the research).
To delight in news that purports to poke holes in the theory that cautions against Western Society's role in the destruction of the environment is a
bit like being a smoker and saying, "I don't smoke Newports because of the fiberglass particles."
So, let's look at the author of the article linked to Yahoo from Forbes is James Taylor
. I'd suggest that getting your news about this from
someone so biased should be cautioned. I went to his profile here
, which also links to his
"blogs" (as Forbes calls them) of which the last six are about negative stances on climate change:
Jul 27 - New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole
In Global Warming Alarmism
Jul 20 - The New Green Economy Is
Bleeding A Great Deal Of Green
Jul 13 - Feds Employ Lucky Rabbit’s Feet
To Fight Global Warming
Jul 6 - Science By Artillery Shell, Or
Science By Cooperation?
Jun 29 - Is Al Gore A Fossil-Fuel Industry Mole?
Jun 22 - Global Warming’s Latest Offense: Chair
I'm starting to see a trend in his stance, you think?
Then, I realized on his profile it says:
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News
So, I thought to myself, what is "The Heartland Institute
". Upon viewing their page - as if seeing Milton Friedman
in the upper right wasn't sufficient of an explanation - I decided to view their "About" section, where I read the following:
Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental
choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of
public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.(emphasis mine)
Market-based approaches to environmental protection means quite frankly that BP, Exxon, Monsanto, and other companies that drill for oil, farm on an
industrial scale, "hydro-frack", remove mountain tops and so forth are not to be regulated by any neutral, public watchdog agency, but are to simply
"police" themselves. That went well in Montana last week, in West Virginia a couple of months ago, and in the gulf a year ago. Oh wait, they were
under public supervision, except that in the first one the state government is complicit, in the second the Massey mine told their employees to lie,
and in the third the regulators were doing meth with the staff. I think regulation is the answer, but independent and incorruptible. How do you do
that? Make the common resources public, not private - but that is my opinion and I digress.
So, we have an author who "blogs" for Forbes, who is actually part of an organization that devotes itself to the privatization and deregulation of
everything from school and buses to water and energy. And this "blogger" posts a story of data from NASA that purports to destroy the whole climate
change...excuse me "Global warming" argument. Actually reversing it to "Global heat-shedding". What does the primary source say? So, I went to
the 11-page PDF that is the study that suggests Taylor's comment that the data "blow [a] gapping hole in Global Warming alarmism".
From a modeling standpoint, this lack of progress is evidence of the complexity of the myriad atmospheric processes that combine to det
Interpretation in simpler terms: the presence of time varying changes in Watt/meter irradiance ermine the sign and magnitude of feedbacks. It is
also due to our inability to quantify feedbacks in the real climate system, a contentious issue with a wide range of published feedback diagnoses 
and disagreements over the ability of existing methods to diagnose feedback [3,4]. (emphasis mine)
The scientists doing the study say that there is contention and disagreement due to an inability to quantify feedbacks.
In response to radiative forcing, the model ocean warms, which in turn causes a net radiative feedback response. Significant to our goal of
diagnosing feedback, the net feedback response to a temperature change is always smaller than the radiative forcing which caused it, owing to the heat
capacity of the system, until radiative equilibrium is once again restored. At that point the radiative feedback equals the radiative
When we're talking about "Global Warming" do we just mean "the air temperature in New York and Boston during an unusually cold winter?? Or a heat
wave in the midwest? No. The ocean is part of it too. And when we talk about "climate change" things like "stronger hurricanes" are part of the
package. What does a warmer ocean mean? I'm in Florida and I can tell you if you want, it is after all hurricane season...
From their conclusion and discussion:
We have shown clear evidence from the CERES instrument that global temperature variations during 2000–2010 were largely radiatively forced. Lag
regression analysis supports the interpretation that net radiative gain (loss) precedes, and radiative loss (gain) follows temperature maxima
(minima). This behavior is also seen in the IPCC AR4 climate models. (emphasis mine)
A simple forcing-feedback model shows that this is the behavior expected from radiatively forced temperature changes, and it is consistent with energy
conservation considerations. In such cases it is difficult to estimate a feedback parameter through current regression techniques. (emphasis
Yeah, sounds like they're really blowing gapping holes in those Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models...
Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO , we conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations
are partly radiatively forced. We hypothesize that changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO
cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance
Interpretation in simpler terms: the presence of time varying changes in Watt/meter irradiance of the climate system. As seen in Figure 3(b) for the
ocean-only data, the signature of radiative forcing is stronger over the oceans than in the global average, suggesting a primarily oceanic origin.
What this might (or might not) imply regarding the ultimate causes of the El Niño and La Niña phenomena is not relevant to our central point,
though: that the presence of time varying radiative forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative
If I'm interpreting this correctly, ENSO (el nino/la nina) affects cloud cover, but it is cloud cover that causes feedback. However, satellite data
show that the net irradiance in the upper atmosphere over time corrupt the diagnosis of this feedback (during the el Nino/la Nina period).
So, from 2000 to 2010, the el Nino/la Nina have caused an inability for certainty or rather determination (or diagnosis, as the scientists in the
article put it) to define and pin point the feedback.
This is only 11 pages, but it's also not my area. However, I'm capable of following if I look up the jargon they use. I see data that is the same as
it is when I look at science articles like this in my area with my jargon that put forth some evidence, but the final verdict is still out to
Then, some guy working for a group (the Heartland Institute) that claims its express goal is to privatize everything has a weekly editorial (opinion -
blog as they call it) column in a financial magazine and you all come on here shouting, "see proof!!!!"
Did any of you even bother to look at any of this before jumping on the bandwagon?? Do any of you see that this is just as bias of reporting as your
claim to disdain on the "left"?? Can we maybe suggest that blow-hards from privately-funded think tanks that go around with an agenda that is
directly supportive of the very companies that are profiting from the actions that some argue cause the climate change is just another form of
propaganda?? I'm just saying, the scientists in the article were very clear that there are uncertainties, discrepancies, disagreements, and
contention. They also say that their are factors that are as yet unquantifiable, but the guy the OP cites is very certain of his interpretation of
their data that meets his goals.