/dev/null Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 http://news.yahoo.co...-192334971.html Are they calling Al Gore a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Are they calling Al Gore a liar? No, the poor man was mislead. Wait, NASA is probably lying. They have distorted the data trying to gain relevance since they are a space agency that can no longer make it to even LEO. /Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 "The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate." It should. But it probably won't. Too many people have too much to lose if air's not taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 No, the poor man was mislead. Wait, NASA is probably lying. They have distorted the data trying to gain relevance since they are a space agency that can no longer make it to even LEO. /Connor Since James Hansen (of NASA) was the biggest proponent of catastrophic global warming, NASA is lying either way. Important note: that story does not illustrate that global warming is wrong per se. It does, however, illustrate a point I've been making for years: computer models SUCK as predictive devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) um, has anybody looked at where the author of this piece works? doesn't seem a real objective source. not making a judgement on the articles conclusions , just sayin... the "why doesn't Heartland disclose the identities of donors?" section of this page is particularly interesting. Edited July 29, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 um, has anybody looked at where the author of this piece works? doesn't seem a real objective source. not making a judgement on the articles conclusions , just sayin... the "why doesn't Heartland disclose the identities of donors?" section of this page is particularly interesting. Way to be skeptical! Seriously. This guy seems to be somewhat of a crank with an agenda. That said, it's certainly not a bad thing if there's any grain of truth to his opinion piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Did anybody bother to read the actual paper? If not, link here. It seems that the interpretation of the article is biased, as it really doesn't touch on the central point of the paper. Namely, DC_Tom's contention is reinforced. The observational data from the satellites proves only one thing for certain: the IPCC computer models are seriously flawed. The paper basically says that there is way too much uncertainty in everyone's methodology to say anything for certain. The paper says we need a better mousetrap, because the observational data doesn't jive with the current modeling techniques, and, that the current modeling techniques DO NOT isolate the variables well enough for any sort of causation to be proved. The only thing that jives with the article's interpretation is: the observational data from the satellites shows the probability for radiation to escape is a lot higher than any current IPCC model allows. The only rational conclusion: AGW is NOT settled science, and anyone running around with any of the current computer models demanding that we make policy using them is a turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 um, has anybody looked at where the author of this piece works? doesn't seem a real objective source. not making a judgement on the articles conclusions , just sayin... the "why doesn't Heartland disclose the identities of donors?" section of this page is particularly interesting. No response other than attack the messenger? I shouldn't be surprised, it's what liberals do best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 No response other than attack the messenger? I shouldn't be surprised, it's what liberals do best. i'm not an expert on climate change. are you? as in medicine, i often rely on position papers in well respected, peer reviewed journals for information and interpretation of vast and sometimes equivocal data. this piece clearly doesn't meet those criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 i'm not an expert on climate change. are you? as in medicine, i often rely on position papers in well respected, peer reviewed journals for information and interpretation of vast and sometimes equivocal data. this piece clearly doesn't meet those criteria. Yeah, Remote Sensing is a real rag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Yeah, Remote Sensing is a real rag. this piece wasn't from that journal. it's an interpretation of a paper published in that journal from an author with ties that should invoke skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 this piece wasn't from that journal. it's an interpretation of a paper published in that journal from an author with ties that should invoke skepticism. Not unlike e-mails proving collusion to omit data that doesn't support your theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 this piece wasn't from that journal. it's an interpretation of a paper published in that journal from an author with ties that should invoke skepticism. Any news story about a scientific paper should invoke skepticism, regardless of the author. Doubly so in your case, since you'll reflexively discredit anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 29, 2011 Author Share Posted July 29, 2011 i'm not an expert on climate change. are you? Neither is Al Gore. But his Powerpoint® is taken as Gospel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Not unlike e-mails proving collusion to omit data that doesn't support your theory Don't be an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Doubly so in your case, since you'll reflexively discredit anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions anyway. you're joking...look in the mirror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 you're joking...look in the mirror And my preconceived notions are...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 And my preconceived notions are...? the most obvious, annoying and blatantly false is that you know more on any subject being discussed than anyone else involved in the discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 the most obvious, annoying and blatantly false is that you know more on any subject being discussed than anyone else involved in the discussion That's not preconceived...generally, it's realized during said discussions. Believe it or not, I never assumed you were an ignorant moron. I waited for you to demonstrate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts