Just when I get a cramp from all the eye rolling at all this Global Warming crap, I run across this.

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.

I love the smell of the truth in the morning. I also love to rub these Global Warmers noses in their own methane expelling crap.

Quote:

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

I can almost hear those idiots who bought into this foaming at the mouth right now.

Quote:

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict. When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Let the butthurt commence. It shall be glorious!

I am reserving judgement until 1] I can see the actual article. Reporters are notoriously BAD at accurately reporting on scientific results. The links to the actual article result in a 504 each time I've tried it. 2] I want to see what other scientists have to say, and if the data they came up with is, you know, repeatable. Since that's how science works. I can immediately think of two separate times where reporters went ~~~~OH MY GOD LOOOOOOOOK~~~~ over results that were then unreproducible, such as with the 'Better Recovery of Cancer Patients attending Meetings*."



*Note that in this specific case, and many others, this is not a case of a scientist falsifying data. It's an honest-to-god unusual result. Those show up sometimes, hence the importance of people doing the same experiment to see if the results bear out.

I remembered something from last year... Kind of makes me wonder about this too...

NASA was caught Manipulating Climate Data to make the temperatures look high than they were.

Quote:

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I know that most alarmists have discredited the whole 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change' movements with how shrill they were. This doesn't help either, it just confuses me even more.

Who is right? Everyone? No one?

I'm all for planting more trees and making the world a less smoggy place. But what can I do, I can't afford a Prius

Global warming or not, I still think it's important that we control for emissions and such. We still can't breathe smog, and we still can't drink water that is flammable. I frankly don't give a shit if global warming is part of a natural cycle, or man-made, or man-worsened, or not happening at all. I want a clean (read as: not covered in man-made chemicals) environment for its own sake.

How does this set of tainted data change the conclusion of the rest of the data?

I would love to believe that global warming isn't real, but all the evidence I've seen points to it being real and a threat. This article does nothing to convince me otherwise, especially after I Googled the author, James Taylor, and found that he is senior fellow for environmental policy at the Heartland Institute, which is notable for being ultraconservative. James Taylor is hardly an example of someone who looks at "just the facts". The article doesn't give much information on the data and is more concerned with going "Neener neener global warming is an alarmist hoax hurr."

Sorry, but this does nothing to convince me of anything but the author's bias.

The worst alarmist models would be very severe indeed. Some people would be more optimistic and have more scope for it not being that bad.

But some people will still use this to say "HA! Look, Global Warming is a lie, it doesn't exist, we can go right back to pouring oil into the sea!"

This looks like another Climategate - the scandal is actually in the way the anti-climate change camp is presenting the information rather than anything done by the scientists.

Brigwen: You're right in one aspect - global warming died years ago.

It's a defunct title for climate change that scientists no longer use because it is inaccurate. In terms of how the climate is changing, yes, some areas will become warmer. But some other areas will become cooler. Some will see more rainfall and storms. Some will see drought.

All of this is not good. Like it or not, the climate is changing. It will effect global crops, global travel, and increased disaster storms (hurricanes, tornados, floods) will harm many lives.

This attitude of "global warming isn't happening" is simply immature. Climate change is happening. Do we know what's causing it? We have our hunches, but no definitive answers. But not knowing the cause doesn't mean it's not happening, or that even a natural climate shift due to cycles won't ruin millions of lives. We still need to do shit about it.

It's highly narcissistic to believe that we humans can completely destroy the world. Climate changes. It always has. For a few thousand years it will balls shattering cold, for another few thousand it will get hotter until another ice age comes. It's natural. Millions of species will go extent and many more will take their place. It's a cycle that has never been broken ever.

Methane accounts for most of green gasses and mainly comes from cattle and live stock. That's man's major impact on the world. Billions of gallons of cow farts and pig shit lakes. The demand for beef and pork is doing the most damage. Long story short, industrialized farming ruins everything it touches. It needs to go away. I'm not advocating for organic farming, it's just as filled with bullshit as all the food industry. Just cut down on shoving so much meat in your faces and the world will be a better place.

Blah blah blah blah

WHEN DO I GET TO FIGHT SEPHIROTH

The global temperature fluctuates. 30 years ago people were complaining about global cooling. 30 years from now they'll be complaining about it again. It's a cycle.

While it is correct to say it's fluctuating, the average of that fluxuations is getting higher over time.

Like if it used to cycle between 100 as an average and 50 as an average 50 years ago, it might be 102 and 52 as averages now. And while that seems like a pidly amount, to temperature sensitive animals and diseases- it is. Especially to the spread of tropical diseases and hot-weather nuisance insects like fire ants.

When do I get to shoot the zombies

lol Braig

EVERYONE IGNORE THE GLACIERS SLOWLY MELTING THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CLIMATE CHANGE