New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Schneibster]

Just goes to show that even scientists can juggle the data to make it say what they want it to say, especially if they're wearing jeebus-goggles. That's why peer review is such a crucial aspect of science. The majority might occasionally be wrong, but it's not wrong as often as individuals are. As for global warming, the majority of climatologists are convinced that it's real and manmade, as far as I know. (I couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread.)

Ask me if you have any questions, I've been through the global warming wars. But you can generally cut out the middleman and search Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ if your google-fu is good.

For this one, this is a review with links to several papers reviewing the state of consensus, both among the scientific community in general and the geophysics community specifically. The best known study is Oreskes 2004, which cites 900 some-odd papers and claims they are the result of searching all scientific papers in the discipline up to the time of writing for the string "global climate change" and shows that 75% of them either affirmed global warming or assumed its existence, and none of them denied it. Enjoy.

[FBM]

Cool. Got it. Thanks, Schneib...

[Schneibster]

My pleasure.

[mistermack]

The IPCC will apparently include anything, true or false, to make global warming look worse :

Sorry, it was bollocks...IPCC

Silly fuckers !!...BBC

The Lying Bastards ! .. Telegraph

Bunch of wankers !!...Guardian

Who can believe these tossers now? The Times...

[FBM]

Just like the scientist who authored the paper linked to in the OP would say just about anything to make global warming disappear in order to feed his xtian agenda.

[mistermack]

Just like the scientist who authored the paper linked to in the OP would say just about anything to make global warming disappear in order to feed his xtian agenda.

Well I'm sceptical about all of it. I present the other side because I don't like this religious attitude that "it's written, so it must be true".
I see they sacked the editor who published it. That's what happens if you blaspheme.
.

[Robert_S]

Can I come and winter at your house, mistermack.

My housemate has this delusional certainty that if we keep the thermostat up around 87F from November to March and never pay the bills, then the power will get shut off and debt collectors will pester him. I say he's closed minded about the whole thing.

[JimC]

Just like the scientist who authored the paper linked to in the OP would say just about anything to make global warming disappear in order to feed his xtian agenda.

Well I'm sceptical about all of it. I present the other side because I don't like this religious attitude that "it's written, so it must be true".
I see they sacked the editor who published it. That's what happens if you blaspheme.
.

I am perfectly satisfied that the data shows with high probability that humans are increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and that this ls causing an overall increase in average global temperatures, which will most likely have some potentially serious consequences long term for both us and the global ecosystem.

I am sceptical about the way the debate is framed by some extremes of the green fringe, who get very preachy, and very "our doom is nigh". Frequently, their proposed solutions are about as realistic as suggesting the whole world immediately turn Amish...

At the back of my mind, however, is an idea that won't go away. We could be considered to be overdue for an ice age; could it just be that our current global warming will stave that off?

(only a random thought, but surely not impossible...)

[FBM]

Just like the scientist who authored the paper linked to in the OP would say just about anything to make global warming disappear in order to feed his xtian agenda.

Well I'm sceptical about all of it. I present the other side because I don't like this religious attitude that "it's written, so it must be true".
I see they sacked the editor who published it. That's what happens if you blaspheme.
.

I hear ya. I'm skeptical of even the things that seem very likely. I try to stay in a state of suspended judgement about anything I don't directly witness. But it does seem like that xtian scientist was fiddling with the numbers. I imagine there are a few on both sides who do that, to protect their vested interests. That's why it's better to get as many views as possible.

And, of course, it's important to develop the self-awareness to recognize when you're fudging the data, too. (generic 'you')

[mistermack]

I hear ya. I'm skeptical of even the things that seem very likely. I try to stay in a state of suspended judgement about anything I don't directly witness. But it does seem like that xtian scientist was fiddling with the numbers. I imagine there are a few on both sides who do that, to protect their vested interests. That's why it's better to get as many views as possible.

What I find disturbing about the IPCC is that their "likelihood" figure of 90% that global warming is man-made is exactly the same as what they gave for their confidence figure for the melting glaciers.

It's pretty obvious that at the end of the day, they grab these figures out of the air.

What really bothers me about AGW is the reliance on feedback loops, which ARE NOT fully understood at all.
When the earth has dived into an ice age in the past, it's been from a point where CO2 has been at it's peak, temperatures were sky high, and the feedback mechanisms should have been operating flat out.
In spite of that, the TINIEST, most gradual change in irradiation levels, apparently plunged the earth into the deepest ice-age.
That just couldn't happen, if the proposed feedback mechanisms are as effective as we are asked to believe. They might well have an effect when the earth is very cold, but if they did, they have always run out of steam when the earth reached the warmest part of the cycle, which is exactly where we are now.

[Animavore]

The editor of the science journal which published Spencer's paper resigned taking responsibility over the paper being passed for review.

The editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing has resigned over the publication of a paper questioning the reliability of climate models. Wolfgang Wagner of Vienna University of Technology in concluded that reviewers of the paper, published 25 July in the open-access journal, failed "to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims," and the paper "should therefore not have been published.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... tml?ref=hp

[Animavore]

Just like the scientist who authored the paper linked to in the OP would say just about anything to make global warming disappear in order to feed his xtian agenda.

Well I'm sceptical about all of it. I present the other side because I don't like this religious attitude that "it's written, so it must be true".
I see they sacked the editor who published it. That's what happens if you blaspheme.
.

He wasn't sacked he resigned

[mistermack]

Just like the scientist who authored the paper linked to in the OP would say just about anything to make global warming disappear in order to feed his xtian agenda.

Well I'm sceptical about all of it. I present the other side because I don't like this religious attitude that "it's written, so it must be true".
I see they sacked the editor who published it. That's what happens if you blaspheme.
.

He wasn't sacked he resigned

Ummmmm, do you believe that just because it's written down? I'm sure that the appropriate pressure was brought to bear.
In the end, resignation is "made attractive" and easier all round. It happens all the time.

Which do you think is more likely? People don't resign just for the fun of it.

[Animavore]

Ummmmm, do you believe that just because it's written down? I'm sure that the appropriate pressure was brought to bear.
In the end, resignation is "made attractive" and easier all round. It happens all the time.

Which do you think is more likely? People don't resign just for the fun of it.

I don't believe it just because it's written down. I haven't seen evidence for your allegation and I'm calling you on it.

[Hermit]

Where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, whenever the facts are uncomfortable.

Speaking of uncomfortable facts, you seem pretty adept at suddenly turning deaf. Schneibster has provided the link before, but you have yet to utter a word about the data manipulation fraud perpetrated by Roy Spencer.