Are you global warming believers getting it yet? All of your prominent “scientists” caught manufacturing and/or covering up data again, and again, and data that repeatedly blows gaping holes in your argument for man-caused global warming/climate change? It’s over already. It was a lie from the beginning. Drop it.
OBTW, did you see Al Gore’s meltdown the other day about people who disagree with him? http://www.mediaite.com/online/al-gore-delivers-angry-rant-against-anti-global-warming-pseudo-scientist-bllshit/Amusing, and at the same time pathetic.
+
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011
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.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a 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, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
“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.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
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.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
+
Filed under: Climate Change, Global Warming | Tagged: Al Gore, alarmist, carbon dioxide, Climate Change, climate model, computer models, Dr. Roy Spencer, ERBS satellite, fraud, Global Warming, Hoax, IPCC, NASA, NOAA, satellite, Terra satellite, United Nations, University of Alabama in Huntsville |
The Wide Awake Patriot 
I’ve been told that there is plenty of scientific evidence for global warming. That may be true, but there is NO non scientific evidence for it. As a non scientist I only accept non scientific evidence, and I don’t see any from the alarmists.
LikeLike
When you build a bridge between the scientific data and common sense, it becomes pretty easy for any reasonably intelligent person to see that many of the so-called “scientists” are using selective science to dazzle the masses into going along with their political scheme and power grab.
For example, (1) the man-made global warmers/climate changers ignore or downplay the role of our sun in any possible warming or cooling. (2) NASA, whose leadership has been shown to be biased toward supporting global warming/climate change, released data that shows Mars and other “nearby” planets warming and cooling at the same rate as the earth. (3) If you follow liberal logic, the only rational conclusion one can draw is that driving our SUV’s is SOOOOOO bad that it’s affecting the climate on Mars.
You can do the same thing with most liberal ideas without being a scientist, statistician, college professor, or even having a college degree.
Take the liberal push to ban guns. They say we must ban guns because guns kill people. That is so easy to shoot holes it (pun intended) that it’s not even funny. If a gun is laying on a table by itself, can it point itself at someone and pull the trigger? No. Barring the occasional tragic accident, it takes someone with intent to kill someone with a gun. Using liberal logic we should also ban cars because they cause drunk driving, and we should ban spoons because they cause people to get fat.
It’s really easy to debunk liberal theories, and it’s usually quite fun.
LikeLike
First, it was nothing close to being peer reviewed – it was published at”MDPI Open Access” – the youtube of journals.
Second, here is the line by line complete debunking of the so called ‘study’
http://web.archive.org/web/20080822…spencers-folly/
http://web.archive.org/web/20080822…encers-folly-2/
http://web.archive.org/web/20080822…encers-folly-3/
Second, this is where the ‘research’ is coming from.
——————————————————————————–
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
The Heartland Institute is a libertarian American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies.
The Heartland Institute questions the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming would be beneficial if it did occur.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks
MediaTransparency reported that the Heartland Institute received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.
The Independent reported that Heartland’s receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a “direct link”…”between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health.”
——————————————————————————–
About the so called scientist
——————————————————————————–
Roy W. Spencer
Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”.
The declaration states:
“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, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.
LikeLike
So, my guess is that you wholly and totally believe in the THEORY of man-caused global warming? Man may have some small influence on global temperature, but there’s just no reasonable way to prove that man’s activities have a SIGNIFICANT impact on global temperatures. When you factor in solar activity, and look at geological data, similar or larger increases and decreases in temperature can be seen in geological studies from prehistoric periods, from man’s appearance on the earth prior to the industrial revolution, and in recorded weather patterns since then. The claims of man caused global warming/cooling/climate change have been made from data both too limited in its scope, and too selective in its data set. When you have the deities of global warming like Al Gore and other advocates who absolutely refuse to openly debate those who believe they are wrong, it doesn’t do much to build their case. When you never take questions, never debate, and only lob verbal grenades at your opponents, you’re just not very credible.
LikeLike