Heretics at NASA

[birdog1960]

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.

no, generally it appears preconcieved. you start with that assumption.

 

but back on point, doesn't it bother anyone else except frenkle that this "think tank" rationilizes not disclosing funding on the basis that these facts might be used against them? this is likely an "astroturf" organization trying to appear grass roots and as evidenced here, succeeding at fooling the general public to advance their donors (oil companies, tobacco co's, finance industry etc) agendas. i've jousted with these clowns before. there's an astroturf propaganda co run by an exFDA official, then pharma exec. now pr pharma man. doesn't publicly disclose funding either but it's available. ....and sheeple eat up their garbage without a second thought.

[OCinBuffalo]

no, generally it appears preconcieved. you start with that assumption.

 

but back on point, doesn't it bother anyone else except frenkle that this "think tank" rationilizes not disclosing funding on the basis that these facts might be used against them? this is likely an "astroturf" organization trying to appear grass roots and as evidenced here, succeeding at fooling the general public to advance their donors (oil companies, tobacco co's, finance industry etc) agendas. i've jousted with these clowns before. there's an astroturf propaganda co run by an exFDA official, then pharma exec. now pr pharma man. doesn't publicly disclose funding either but it's available. ....and sheeple eat up their garbage without a second thought.

I don't doubt you. As I said the article is biased.

 

But...

 

....that does not address the paper, which clearly demonstrates that the IPCC models are total crap. And, the IPCC models are the ONLY thing Global Warming^TM environtologists have that proves what they are saying is true. As the "proof" has now been severely criticized, objectively, using data that was PROPERLY collected, the environtologists had better pull some amazing science out of their ass at the last minute...or face the facts that their entire premise has been refuted. If the premise goes, so does all the policy.

 

And, then, hopefully, the EPA and all the rest gets back to doing its job-->protecting us from pollution, and ceases f'ing about in things that are clearly outside its scope, like economics, foreign policy, "fundamentally transforming America" and pretty much everything else that isn't "pollution".

Edited August 4, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[GaryPinC]

no, generally it appears preconcieved. you start with that assumption.

 

but back on point, doesn't it bother anyone else except frenkle that this "think tank" rationilizes not disclosing funding on the basis that these facts might be used against them? this is likely an "astroturf" organization trying to appear grass roots and as evidenced here, succeeding at fooling the general public to advance their donors (oil companies, tobacco co's, finance industry etc) agendas. i've jousted with these clowns before. there's an astroturf propaganda co run by an exFDA official, then pharma exec. now pr pharma man. doesn't publicly disclose funding either but it's available. ....and sheeple eat up their garbage without a second thought.

 

I certainly understand your concern with the author but I do not believe the author is connected to the published paper in any way. Am I wrong? I am no climatology expert but the paper seems to do a good job of explaining their methodologies in detail, something I haven't seen from the pro-manmade global warming scientists.

 

The paper demonstrates a large discrepancy in radiative feedback (planetary heat loss) compared to the standard computer models. Their methodologies are solid enough that the global warming scientists have to address the discrepancy if they expect to maintain any credibility.

 

Thanks for posting this /dev/null. Interesting paper.