New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism:

And yet, Australia is still putting in a Carbon Tax

Don't listen to anyone! use you own senses.
Last year coffee was bad for you, now it's good for you or is it bad again now....

Record heat...it is hot...nuf for me.

Anyone who believes this is a FOOL. You ought to do some research before you believe anything you hear. Ever wonder who this guy is? He's not even a NASA scientist. Shame on you for believing it.

It's nothing but FACTUAL MISREPRESENTATION – CONFLICT OF INTEREST

This article implies that the findings of Dr. Spencer are a NASA publication, when this is not the case. Yet I have seen the article reposted on several sites around the internet, without clarification that it is an opinion piece, and often with commentators asserting that “NASA researchers” came to these conclusions.

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has maintained a neutral and non-partisan, data-centric effort in monitoring climatic change. The reputation of the organization when it comes to validity and defensibility of data is an extraordinarily strong asset that carries great weight with the public. As such, the misrepresentation of independent findings, by researchers not linked to NASA, as the conclusions of the national organization exploit its reputation to promote their own legitimacy.

Particularly troubling is the fact that the researcher exploiting a reputation that is not is own actually has a troubling reputation himself, when it comes to quality of past research and his affiliation with organizations that undermine his credibility on this issue and illustrate a glaring conflict of interest. Dr. Spencer’s associations with conservative, anti-regulatory think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute have gotten him into trouble in the past, and it is extremely deceptive to defer his personal reputation by replacing it with that of NASA. The Heartland Institute, of which Dr. Spencer is a member, is famous for its manipulative defense of energy and tobacco companies, which has involved hiring “scientists” to make claims that favor industry, contrary to established science, such as that second-hand smoke does not cause cancer. The organization has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from ExxonMobil, as well as millions of dollars in funding from private anti-regulatory foundations, and has previously opposed all regulatory policy, both environmental and non-environmental, and within environmental policy, climate as well as non-climate issues. It is not an impartial organization, and its agenda should not be conflated with that of NASA.

Furthermore, Dr. Spencer has openly professed his view that scientific assessment of climate science should be secondary to a faith-based “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.” This declaration, organized by the creationism advocacy group The Cornwall Alliance, and of which Dr. Spencer is a signatory, makes it clear that Dr. Spencer has adopted a viewpoint on global warming based in faith and not science, defying broad scientific consensus on a number of issues based on the justification that God will not allow man to harm the planet. The provisions of the declaration, by definition, contradict the objective observation central to the scientific method, and require that an individual reach conclusions that do not interfere with religious faith. The statements espoused by Dr. Spencer include:

- 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.
- We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
- We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part.
- We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures.
- We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable… while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.

While I do not criticize Dr. Spencer for being a man of faith, it is nevertheless critical to the integrity of science that a researcher rely on the scientific method, using direct observations and replicable measurements, to reach a conclusion that can be considered valid science. Dr. Spencer has not been able to maintain this distinction, and regularly abandons scientific analysis when it conflicts with his personal faith. He is also quoted in a book (Penfold, Michael [2007]. The Evolution Crisis. ISBN 1900742241.) as saying he was convinced that “the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution… Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.” This type of reasoning, which attempts to interject an untestable, immeasurable, invisible force into a discipline otherwise guided by worldly observation, was specifically challenged in U.S. Federal Court during Kitzmiller vs. Dover, and it was found to sufficiently deviate from the scientific method to violate the establishment clause within a public setting.

haha conspiracy theorists have been saying this for years, hell i've had my dad call me crazy for not believing the propaganda..

reply to post by Kali74


Anyone who thinks driving cars, dumping in lakes and rivers and over populating isn't effecting the world, you are wrong and a moron. Pee in you fish tank a little each day-the fish will eventually die. We are in the process of changing the weather on accident. One year-it will all be different.

The logic is there, we have been removing the Ozone layer with all of our Refrigerents etc we have been releasing into the atmosphere, this means the earth will lose more heat but will also obsorb more too when exposed to the sun. The CO2 levels will trap some of the heat that we get in but i did find it ammusing to hear that every time a Volcano errupts it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere then we have in the last 40 years. I'd be more worried about the Ozone levels then the greenhouse effect!

Dr. Spencer is a co-author, he did not work on this paper alone.

But whether you like Spencer or not, is totally moot either way you look at it.

The simple fact of the matter is that feedbacks, like radiative feedback (which is what this paper is all about), has been a major thorn in the sides of climatologists and climate science since day one.

It's impossible to predict future feedback effects due to the number of feedback mechanisms still not fully understood, the massive variables involved with each one, and their unpredictable behaviour from one day to the next...

This paper is just simply another example of real world scientific observations showing that computer modelling is NOT an accurate science. It's nothing more than assumptions and what if scenarios.

Assumptions and what if scenarios CANNOT be utilized as the supporting data to rashly push forth global government policies (ie: carbon tax) because there is far too much at stake here. This science damn well needs to be precise and accurate, or we're in for one hell of a lot of global economic turmoil if it ends up wrong.

Far worse than the economic turmoil we're seeing right now.

Real world observations keep showing again and again as time goes on, that climate science is still in its infancy.

Yes, let's clean up our act and aim towards a sustainable future, but at a more realistic, economically viable pace... and in the meantime, we improve on the sciences that impact those decisions.

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 Shortages

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 [1] 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 forcing.(emphasis mine)

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 mine)

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 [9], 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 feedback.

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 lunch.

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.

Even though it's not proven that Global Warming is caused by our species, we must not forget the harm we do to other species and the planet itself is indeed real. We must take better care of the home we live in.

And that also means finding other sources of energy along with focusing on green policies. Does it mean stop drilling for oil? Of course not, considering 99% of our lives involve oil based products. But we should spend more time focusing more on solar power, etc.

Just because Al Gore is a schmuck, doesn't mean you should stop taking care of your planet, kiddies.

Wow. Just....wow. I shouldn't be amazed - but I am - that people can be proud of their rejection and ignorance of scientific thought, which is very much what it takes to be a normal climate change denier. First of all, the author of the article in Forbes is a member of a libertarian think thank that promotes climate skepticism, so anything they produce should already be taken with a huge grain of salt, insofar as it is impossible that this person doesn't have a vested ideological interest in pretending like climate change/global warming doesn't exist. His use of "alarmist" is quite telling, and he's obviously trying to frame an established scientific consensus as bunk, much the same way foolish I.D.'ers make their ridiculous arguments against evolution.

"97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures" See:tigger.uic.edu...

I doubt there is a single, *credible* climate scientist who would stand by the analysis or conclusions found in the original "Remote Sensing" article. ''I cannot believe it got published,' said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research." As someone else has pointed out, this was just meant to make skeptics feel good. It has no actual merit at all. Like ID-ers, skeptics all follow the same script, pointing towards funding, greed and grants as the reason the so called hoax is perpetuated. It's pretty sad.

I've been reading popular science magazines for a quarter of a century now, and all the patterns we were told to expect over the last twenty-five years are now coming true. God awful heat waves, once-in-a-century blizzards, etc, are all going to become the new NORM because of human-induced global climate change. There's no going back, because powerful vested interests (i.e NOT Al Gore, who has NO power) want to keep populations ignorant and docile because they've got a groovy thing going on. The military-industrial-energy complex is DEPENDING on climate change to keep them and their friends and sycophants rich and empowered into the distant future. They can convince people that foreign wars of imperialistic occupation and energy domination are about "freedom" or "weapons of mass destruction," and they can convince vast swaths of people that a major scientific effort and body of knowledge is without merit. It's quite amazing.

reply to post by SeventhSeal

Just because Al Gore is a schmuck, doesn't mean you should stop taking care of your planet, kiddies.

See that's where you're wrong in implying such as.

Its a different issue altogether than the Global Warming (Climate Change) Fraud.

Everyone already knows we must take care of the planet.

We just don't want Charlatans(Al Gore) Spreading Dis-info and initiated a fraudulent Carbon-Tax based on False Science.

A Crafty Guilt trip Global Warming Believers use is 'but we have to take care of the planet'

But that's the thing CO2 Isn't the Problem.



Its the Nuclear Plants the Deforestation and the Toxic Waste/ Waste in forms of Plastic Etc and Land Fills what not

We need to become more efficient as a species.

Not be subjected to a Fraudulent Carbon Tax.

I know the Global Warmers love to Guilt trip So called 'Deniers' about this though

reply to post by anon72


With every post you make, I can't help but wonder if you're on the Koch brothers' payroll.

Khar

reply to post by anon72


Since there is evidence this guy has an agenda and misrepresented the information and is not saying anything new that people have not already heard, is it possible this thread will be moved to the HOAX section?

reply to post by mahajohn


Excellent reply!

There's no going back, because powerful vested interests (i.e NOT Al Gore, who has NO power) want to keep populations ignorant and docile because they've got a groovy thing going on.

And it seems to be working. This thread is a great example of how easy it is to do. Ignorance is rampant and spreading like a cancer.

Originally posted by Nobama
haha conspiracy theorists have been saying this for years, hell i've had my dad call me crazy for not believing the propaganda..

Listen to your dad. At least HE knows what he is talking about.

This is great news but most already knew all this. If we all knew we weren't causing global warming and warming up the planet then we would not be going as green as we are now. Going green is beneficial for our dear mother earth and the being that inhabit this earth. Star and Flag!

Good post anon72. BUT, I don't think we don't need to worry too much about the degree of gobal warming, or whether or not it is a man made issue. We, Homo Sapiens, are ( Arguably ! ) the most intelligent species on the planet. I think we will also be the shortest lived, one way or another. Just my 'umble opinion...

Well, one thing I can tell you all, is that after the Climate Change thing started to get holes popped in it, the Bilderbergs started to think up new ways to convince us we need a global tax, since that's what they talk about at their meetings. Richard Trumpka has been hobknobbing with European Intl Socialists who are pushing for a global economic tax. So now that the Climate Change thing is out of the way, they found a new crisis, the global depression.

I am all for the green-movement. Doing all we can to reduce pollution, and keeping the environment as clean as we can is very important. What i dont agree with is people who use fear, and scare tactics to make money. I think we, as humans, need to humble ourselves a bit and realize that this planet has been around for millions of years before we were even a twinkle in our mother's eye. The planet will live on long after we are gone, just like she lived long before we were here.

need to show this to my RANGA of a PM ms Gillard..
sadly she still wants to ruin our economy