New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

"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"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Because NASA's data confirms it...

The data is not biased....
 
"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"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?

Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:

1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;

2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);

3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;

4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

You got a lot of nerve man.
 
"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"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Because NASA's data confirms it...

The data is not biased....

Have you analyzed the data yourself or just swallowed what an obviously biased author laid out for you? All I saw in that article was a "hit piece", but since you obviously have inside information or already did extensive research, show it to us, please.
 
How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

:cuckoo:
 
"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"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?

Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:

1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;

2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);

3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;

4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

You got a lot of nerve man.

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?



That's the logic behind AGW. If you notice in the article, it doesn't say that energy isn't being trapped, just that the rate is slower than some expect. Well, that's really a go-hum conclusion, since AGW proponents aren't unanimous in their predictions of how fast warming is coming, anyway. Just that it's coming.
 
"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"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Because NASA's data confirms it...

The data is not biased....
Oh the little paragon of virtue turns on the chicken little. Now the 'no true scotsman' defense comes out to discredit this.

You beat me to this punch Dr. House.
 
Actually global cooling is on it's way in. But I could use some warming after three unusually cold winters and short summers in a row.
 
How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Because NASA's data confirms it...

The data is not biased....

Have you analyzed the data yourself or just swallowed what an obviously biased author laid out for you? All I saw in that article was a "hit piece", but since you obviously have inside information or already did extensive research, show it to us, please.

My refusal to do your homework doesn't discredit the data from NASA...

You can pretend it does if you want....
 
Because NASA's data confirms it...

The data is not biased....

Have you analyzed the data yourself or just swallowed what an obviously biased author laid out for you? All I saw in that article was a "hit piece", but since you obviously have inside information or already did extensive research, show it to us, please.

My refusal to do your homework doesn't discredit the data from NASA...

You can pretend it does if you want....

You're the one that didn't do his homework. You're just parroting whatever fits your bias. If you've read something other than that article, which doesn't say much except to throw around loaded words, show us.
 
Have you analyzed the data yourself or just swallowed what an obviously biased author laid out for you? All I saw in that article was a "hit piece", but since you obviously have inside information or already did extensive research, show it to us, please.

My refusal to do your homework doesn't discredit the data from NASA...

You can pretend it does if you want....

You're the one that didn't do his homework. You're just parroting whatever fits your bias. If you've read something other than that article, which doesn't say much except to throw around loaded words, show us.
129167297847724253.jpg
 
How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Because NASA's data confirms it...

The data is not biased....

Have you analyzed the data yourself or just swallowed what an obviously biased author laid out for you? All I saw in that article was a "hit piece", but since you obviously have inside information or already did extensive research, show it to us, please.

:lol: I can just imagine you hunched over the keyboard going over all the data presented by the other side. You didn't get that data in an email from Phil Jones, did you?
 
How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Because NASA's data confirms it...

The data is not biased....

Have you analyzed the data yourself or just swallowed what an obviously biased author laid out for you? All I saw in that article was a "hit piece", but since you obviously have inside information or already did extensive research, show it to us, please.

So do you believe that the quotes used are biased?

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer (principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite) said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
 
"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"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.







:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Cost to launch NASA satellite hundreds of millions of dollars.

konrads delusional response to articles...priceless.
 
Why is information like this newest NASA data important?

1. Because it refutes a lot of NASA data supporting global warming used by AGW alarmists to push their agenda.

2. Because we have a President and a majority in Congress all too eager to pass some kind of cap and trade bill that will put a hefty tax on every American and provide all manner of perks for their cronies but will relinquish much of America's energy sovereignty to authority of a one-world-government like authority run by people who absolutely do not have our best interests at heart.

3. Because it is one more incentive to fight those who would take away our choices, options, and opportunities based on what appears to be likely fuzzy science at best and outright intentional fraud at worst.

The money phrases from that Forbes article linked in the OP:

....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. . . .

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

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. . . .

. . . .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.
 
"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"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

Just another distorted bit of denier propaganda from a Heartland Institute stooge for the fossil fuel industry, James Taylor, who's spinning a new paper by denier cult scientist, creationist and general science flake, Roy Spencer. It's all hype and spin and has no real significance.
 

Forum List

Back
Top