Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

catoismymotor (41.70)

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Recs

23

July 28, 2011 – Comments (22)

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming AlarmismBy 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.   

 

 

I like to think this is a little pay back for ending the shuttle program.  

 

-Cato

22 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

Expect this to be shouted down by the Global Warming Mafia.

Report this comment
#2) On July 28, 2011 at 8:12 PM, EnigmaDude (92.69) wrote:

hahaha - you can't argue with Remote Sensing!  Truth from Space...

Report this comment
#3) On July 28, 2011 at 8:24 PM, TMFCrocoStimpy (95.70) wrote:

I just wish the author could have used the word Alarmist more than every third sentence - it would have carried far more conviction

Report this comment
#4) On July 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.23) wrote:

The author is an alarmist. Firing off the alarms in order to alarm the public against the alarmist global warmalarm.

Seriously, if this data can be independently verified then it is revealing indeed. I doubt the source at the moment.

 Also, I'll check the primary paper tomorrow when I go to work and post the pdf if I can find it. 

Report this comment
#5) On July 28, 2011 at 9:09 PM, TMFCrocoStimpy (95.70) wrote:

The original paper can be found here.  I don't know the reputation of the journal, but they definitely need better editors - the writing is atrocious (I'm a refugee from 2 decades in academia, and this is pretty ugly writing).

Report this comment
#6) On July 28, 2011 at 9:18 PM, blesto (32.17) wrote:

 I like to think this is a little pay back for ending the shuttle program.

Ha, ha, ha!  That's good, but it was time to start wrapping up the shuttle program. Some really good things came out of it, but it never delivered on its original intent of being an inexpensive "Space truck".

The payback would be more for not having any more plans for going back to the Moon.

The Constellation Program was next up to bat, and they are now benched. NASA is still moving forward, though, with the Orion MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle)

As for global warming, I still think we've been global warming ever since the last Ice Age. No biggie. Heck, if we get a few more volcanoes like in Iceland, along with the right sun activity. we could have us another mini-ice age. Our globe is gonna continue to change one way or the other. People need to just accept that.

I'm all for cleaner air to breathe, though. I like the ideas for cleaner energy solutions, but to scare people with global warming hysteria is just wrong.  

Report this comment
#7) On July 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM, ajm101 (31.82) wrote:

"In the past, Taylor has served as a legal analyst for Defenders of Property Rights, an intern at the Cato Institute, and a member of the Federalist Society. Taylor is also managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a Heartland Institute publication.

Taylor previously served as managing editor of CCH Incorporated's disability law publications, where he became a nationally known expert and frequent speaker on a variety of employment law topics. Prior to that he was a legal analyst for Defenders of Property Rights. While at Syracuse University College of Law, he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice. Taylor is an active contributor to a weekly column on climate change issues on Forbes.com. His satirical blog posts reference global warming as alarmism and liberal propaganda.

B.A. Dartmouth College J.D. Syracuse University"

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=631

Report this comment
#8) On July 28, 2011 at 11:54 PM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

As King Phillip of Spain said to his admiral when informed that his Great Armada was decimated by storms when returning home, "The weather is the weather."

Report this comment
#9) On July 29, 2011 at 8:29 AM, ChrisGraley (29.67) wrote:

The math didn't work in the begining, so scientific obsevation is never going to support it.

Report this comment
#10) On July 29, 2011 at 9:30 AM, TMFBlacknGold (98.58) wrote:

This doesn't disprove global warming - just that select models that "predict" it are way off. Models from 2001 "predicted" great growth for the markets through 20XX (insert your own date here). How did that work out? If anyone has read Taleb's Black Swan they know that we humans aren't very good at predicting the future. There are far too many variables to account for.

There is plenty of concrete evidence that the world climate is changing. One big example that will get more publicity in coming years: forest fires in the arctic this year have released more CO2 into the atmosphere than the arctic takes in in a single year.

Should we blindly ignore one of the largest killers in the world, air pollution, just because we don't want to keep an open mind about possible climate change? Let's say climate change is bogus. We don't make any changes to emissions for the next 40 years. How much money will be spent by people, governments, and companies to pay for increased medical bills stemming from more frequently occuring respiratory illnesses?

I'm pretty sure I'll write-up a blog post to explain my thoughts further.

BlacknGold

Report this comment
#11) On July 29, 2011 at 11:17 AM, kdakota630 (29.49) wrote:

The Earth's climate has been changing all by itself for hundreds of millions of years, will continue to do so for hundreds of millions more, and a group of politicians and bureaucrats sitting in a room trying to change human behaviour is not going to alter that fact.

Report this comment
#12) On July 29, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Rehydrogenated (32.12) wrote:

A few notes about TFA:
1) The data comes from satellites put into space by NASA, but NASA is in no way involved in this study.
2) If this study actually significantly contradicts our knowledge of global heating, why has it been published in Remote Sensing, and not a more reputable journal?
3) They only interviewed the guy from the University of Alabama who lead the study
4) The author works for The Heartland Institute
5) They seem to have replaced the words "accurate" and "accepted by the scientific community" with "alarmist"
6) Source on UN's involvement? Seems like they threw that one in just to go for the "UN = bad" reaction that a lot of people have

Report this comment
#13) On July 29, 2011 at 11:23 AM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

I just wish the author could have used the word Alarmist more than every third sentence - it would have carried far more conviction

It makes it very tough to consider this to be in any way unbiased.  The author has a clear axe to grind.

Report this comment
#14) On July 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, TMFBlacknGold (98.58) wrote:

@ kdakota630

Yes that is obviously true. It does not mean that we humans are not capable of screwing up the climate by ourselves. For instance, during the Younger Dryas, world climate shifted almost overnight in geologic terms (1300 years). If we humans help by overloading the atmosphere with positive feedback pollutants - CO2, methane, moisture - we could significantly alter Earth's climate within a few centuries. Let's say an outrageously long time (to humans) of 650 years, to please everyone who discards climate change. That's still twice as quickly as the fastest "natural" climate shift we know.

Report this comment
#15) On July 29, 2011 at 12:16 PM, TMFBlacknGold (98.58) wrote:

This article is similar to what I was saying earlier about added costs to society from air pollutants.

Report this comment
#16) On July 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM, rfaramir (29.27) wrote:

"we humans aren't very good at predicting the future."

This is exactly why entrepreneurs are so important. There is no fixed formula for financial success. But a free market rewards those who correctly predict consumer needs and desires, no matter how they did it. Luck, insight, hard work doing market research, logical proofs, whacko theories, whatever works. But liberty is essential for the free market to work, especially for entrepreneurs to have the opportunity to try (and fail or succeed). There's too much "not allowed" in our society for entrepreneurs to flourish and it's showing in our economic decline.

Report this comment
#17) On July 29, 2011 at 1:15 PM, blake303 (29.16) wrote:

I blame moon volcanoes.

 

 

Report this comment
#18) On July 29, 2011 at 1:16 PM, TMFBlacknGold (98.58) wrote:

Very true. Although I think our economic decline has a lot to do with a lot of things. Lack of leadership. Lack of focus, as in, we think we can do everything. A lot of countries kick our behind in trade balance because the specialize in certain industries. We have some amazing technological advantages over most countries in several industries (medical applications is one). Yet we don't capitalize because we are too worried about losing textile jobs to China and Bangladesh, IT jobs to automated systems and India, and other low-level, low-margin jobs.

Report this comment
#19) On July 29, 2011 at 1:17 PM, blake303 (29.16) wrote:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201107280007

Report this comment
#20) On July 29, 2011 at 1:22 PM, leohaas (32.07) wrote:

Sure. I guess you have not read this article yet...

First paragraph: "New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated."

Report this comment
#21) On July 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM, ChrisGraley (29.67) wrote:

I read it leohaas,

It seems that scientists getting fat paydays by telling lies are getting nervous. 

Report this comment
#22) On August 01, 2011 at 8:53 AM, TMFBlacknGold (98.58) wrote:

Chris, you should read Michael Specter's book Denialism. At least look it up on Amazon.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement