Palin likens global warming studies t...

Palin likens global warming studies to 'snake oil'

There are 363 comments on the Sacramento Bee Newspaper story from Feb 9, 2010, titled Palin likens global warming studies to 'snake oil'. In it, Sacramento Bee Newspaper reports that:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch of snake oil science" Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sacramento Bee Newspaper.

SpaceBlues

United States

#229 Jan 17, 2013
worse than we thought wrote:
<quoted text>go with the propaganda if you like 'space', the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña has been known about, observed ad recorded for hundreds of years after being named by spanish sailors who noticed the change in ocean currents. sunspots have been known, observed and recorded for thousands of years after being noticed by a man in china. these are historic facts and records of natural events that do not need any tampering, adjustments or false data to fit into a theory of man made global warmng. the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña caused by the sunspot cycles are the driving forces in the earths weather, not the made up theory of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. we will see what the new cycle brings. you must think carbon credits and useless computer models will change the sun and the ocean currents, good luck with that 'space'.
Boo to you kal.

What I posted provided the summary results. You are welcome.

OTH you repeat your agenda-driven propaganda that is unwarranted trash. Is this what they are paying you for?

I remember the days when you were an intern looking for sponsorship from the resident deniers. It looks like you are only a candidate paid-poster.

Still.

Don't worry; tina is still like you.

LOL.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#230 Jan 17, 2013
worse than we thought wrote:
<quoted text>by the way 'wallop', Sea surface temperature records and solar sunspot cycles and years of research of the satellite-era sea surface temperature data that’s available to the public via the internet, indicate El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years and ocean heat content since 1955, not manmade greenhouse gases. the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña and the solar sunspot cycles are the culprit in global warming events. Because land surface air temperatures simply exaggerate the natural warming of the global oceans over annual and multidecadal time periods, the vast majority of the warming taking place on land is natural, and there are no indications the warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. None at all. with the current sunspot cycle winding down, and noticeable changes in the ocean current patterns, we will have to wait and see if the new phase will change to an El Niño or La Niña event or stay a repeat of the back to back La Nina's, and if the new sunspot cycle is weaker or stronger than the current cycle.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/15...
So Who exactly is science-denier Steven Goddard?
Couldn’t find him on Wikipedia.
Answer.Yahoo asks the question. Seems it is a pseudoname.
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard's articles:

"My apologies to readers. I'll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-...

John Cook rebutted another of Goddard's idiotic WUWT posts here as well:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With...

Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it's not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

your hero Steven Goddard was forced to make a retraction regarding the Arctic Ice melt.

In his article, Goddard claimed that National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of Arctic Sea Ice Extent was wrong and that,
"The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."
Today, Goddard is retracting the claim:

See it below his article here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/godda...

"… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated." -- Steven Goddard

But not to worry skeptics, the copycat right wing sites never cares about the truth of their article, and they were happy reporting the ORIGINAL story by Goddard, not the refutation by him – there was a count of some 70 copy cats of the original with titles like:

•Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year
•The Global Warming Theory takes a hit
•Fishy Data From the Government
•Here’s another installment about the silliness of “global warming” as posited by politicians and “environmentalists”.
•Cooking the Books to Cook the Ice
•Global Warming is about global government and depopulation

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#231 Jan 17, 2013
worse than we thought wrote:
<quoted text>by the way 'wallop', Sea surface temperature records and solar sunspot cycles and years of research of the satellite-era sea surface temperature data that’s available to the public via the internet, indicate El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years and ocean heat content since 1955, not manmade greenhouse gases. the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña and the solar sunspot cycles are the culprit in global warming events. Because land surface air temperatures simply exaggerate the natural warming of the global oceans over annual and multidecadal time periods, the vast majority of the warming taking place on land is natural, and there are no indications the warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. None at all. with the current sunspot cycle winding down, and noticeable changes in the ocean current patterns, we will have to wait and see if the new phase will change to an El Niño or La Niña event or stay a repeat of the back to back La Nina's, and if the new sunspot cycle is weaker or stronger than the current cycle.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/15...
So Who exactly is science-denier Steven Goddard?
Couldn’t find him on Wikipedia.
Answer.Yahoo asks the question. Seems it is a pseudoname.
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard's articles:

"My apologies to readers. I'll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-...

John Cook rebutted another of Goddard's idiotic WUWT posts here as well:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With...

Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it's not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

your hero Steven Goddard was forced to make a retraction regarding the Arctic Ice melt.

In his article, Goddard claimed that National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of Arctic Sea Ice Extent was wrong and that,
"The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."
Today, Goddard is retracting the claim:

See it below his article here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/godda...

"… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated." -- Steven Goddard

But not to worry skeptics, the copycat right wing sites never cares about the truth of their article, and they were happy reporting the ORIGINAL story by Goddard, not the refutation by him – there was a count of some 70 copy cats of the original with titles like:

Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year
The Global Warming Theory takes a hit
Fishy Data From the Government
Here’s another installment about the silliness of “global warming” as posited by politicians and “environmentalists”.
Cooking the Books to Cook the Ice
Global Warming is about global government and depopulation
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#232 Jan 18, 2013
There you have it folks more walloped science fiction cut and paste useless babble from the wallop10

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#233 Jan 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
No! They said they did not know in 1975 [because it was still a hypothesis BEFORE testing] and in 1995 they DID know {because it had been tested and verified]
Did they? Then explain why there models in 1995 could not accurately predict climate in 2000 let alone 2010.

They claimed that they knew in 1975 and they claimed they knew in 1995. They will claim that again in 2015 and all three times will have one thing in common. Later they will have to admit they did not know what they needed to know.

Tested yes, verified, only time can verify and each and every time it was thumbs down.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#234 Jan 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why guess when you can look it up
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members at the end of 2008,[1] and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which has a weekly circulation of 138,549.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Associa...
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Coleman, the founder and EX-CEO of the weather channle is a guy with no science degree and an octogenarian wing nut skeptic. His degree was in... journalism-- same as Sarah Palin.
The Weather Channel has disassociated themselves with him on global warming.
<< Critics of Coleman’s have questioned his lack of academic credentials, journalism degree, and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change.
<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_ (news_weathercaster)
I'll check the double listing of NAS
Funny thing is if I was to check out what the NRA claimed it would match what the AAAS claims. The fact is that the AAAS which is a lobbing group based in Washington DC which is a hot bed of politics and not science. It publishes a magazine not a journal that has a smaller cirulation than the National Enquirer and has a track record of spending more time taking about politics with Congressmen and Senators than scientist. The education and outreach is just as similar to many other political organizations including the NRA who talks about the exact same thing.

Your post describes a enviromental lobbist group perfectly. One that is promoting the agenda of man made climate change dispite the fact that research abounds that disproves it. You talk about how many are members but the simple fact is that anyone with a credit care can become a member. In comparision the AARP has a far more stringent requirement to join. The AAAS requirements are about the same as the Playboy Club and I sure the Playboy club has just as many if not more scientist on their roles than the AAAS. After all, what guy doesn't like looking at photoshopped and airbrushed pictures of young coeds naked. Or for that matter what teenage boy dosen't like looking at those pictures.
SpaceBlues

United States

#235 Jan 18, 2013
Mann was brought up in Amherst, Massachusetts, where his father was a professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts (UMass). At school he was interested in math, science and computing. In 1983 he was prompted by seeing the film WarGames to write a rudimentary self-learning tic-tac-toe program which made random moves and listed losing moves which it would not repeat. Mann found a "trick" of using symmetry to reduce the number of unique moves to store so that the computer would not slow down so much.[3]

In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987 he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.[4] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.[1]

[copy from Wikipedia pasted proudly here]
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#236 Jan 18, 2013
And there you have it folks more useless babble scientific science fiction from the spaced out spaceoutblues.
SpaceBlues

United States

#237 Jan 18, 2013
Professor Mann could do all that at Penn because he's a real PhD.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#239 Jan 20, 2013
SpacedoutBlues wrote:
Professor Mann could do all that at Penn because he's a real PhD.
MR. MANN said More scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#240 Jan 20, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that the AAAS which is a lobbing group based in Washington DC which is a hot bed of politics and not science. It publishes a magazine not a journal that has a smaller cirulation than the National Enquirer and has a track record of spending more time taking about politics with Congressmen and Senators than scientist. The education and outreach is just as similar to many other political organizations including the NRA who talks about the exact same thing.
Your post describes a enviromental lobbist group perfectly. One that is promoting the agenda of man made climate change dispite the fact that research abounds that disproves it.
You don't like the AAAS? Well here are some more for you.
Here is UK's Royal Society, heard of them?
Here is the Royal Society:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change...
<<It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure - global temperature - the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.
The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations. Our work has taken the following forms:
Policy reports & statements

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#241 Jan 20, 2013
And here is NASA.

Evidence: Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

&#61607; The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

&#61607; Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

• Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

• Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

• Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9

• Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

• Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#242 Jan 20, 2013
Wallop to tina anne: Need some more citations?

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://spark.ucar.edu/climate-change-causes-a...

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warmi...

Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/...

American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechan...

American Institute of Physics (AIP)
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS):
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies....

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

or how about

#1 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-c...

#2 http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

#3 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

And ALL the mainstream science media: Scientific American, Science, Discover, NewScientist -- any respected world renown science magazine or journal
Phalanx

Auburn, CA

#243 Jan 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>MR. MANN said More scientific science fiction.
Ha ha ha ha You are the cut and paste troll.No response to anything,just uneducated jibberish.Make a point or something.Are you really that stupid?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#244 Jan 23, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't like the AAAS? Well here are some more for you.
Here is UK's Royal Society, heard of them?
Here is the Royal Society:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change...
<<It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure - global temperature - the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.
The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations. Our work has taken the following forms:
Policy reports & statements
Why would I like any lobbying group which is what the AAAS is. And it seems the Royal Society based thier finding on the IPCC finding which turned out to be a work of fiction. It seems like they also relied on the University of East Angela which was made famous by climategate. That is where they had the emails talking about how they were cooking the numbers to support AGW. That they were supressing anything that disproved AGW.

Looks like you are a big fan of science fiction. Since that entire post was nothing but.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#245 Jan 23, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
And here is NASA.
Evidence: Climate change: How do we know?
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Funny, but it seems like NASA must be of two minds on this subject.

http://personalliberty.com/2011/07/29/nasa-da...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-...

http://real-agenda.com/2011/07/28/nasa-satell...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/12/nasas-j...

http://millergd.blogspot.com/2011/07/nasa-pro...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#246 Jan 23, 2013
Phalanx wrote:
<quoted text>Ha ha ha ha You are the cut and paste troll.No response to anything,just uneducated jibberish.Make a point or something.Are you really that stupid?
HA HA HA HA You are the commander of uneducated questions asked.The real point is that there is nothing more than cut and paste useless babble scientific science fiction jibberish.Are you that stupid to see it? Keep in mind I do respond in kind.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#247 Jan 23, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I like any lobbying group which is what the AAAS is.
.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science is for people interested in science. Obviously a topic you know or care nothing about.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And it seems the Royal Society based thier finding on the IPCC finding which turned out to be a work of fiction..
Actually NASA and all the other climatology agencies, and also all the collegial studies at MIT, Harvard, and the like.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems like they also relied on the University of East Angela which was made famous by climategate. That is where they had the emails talking about how they were cooking the numbers to support AGW. That they were supressing anything that disproved AGW..
The only SCAM is "Climategate" - every single investigation has cleared the scientists.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/08...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/30/tec...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm... -
cleared-in-inquiry-again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/ju...
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like you are a big fan of science fiction. Since that entire post was nothing but.
Looks like **YOU** are a fan of right wing ideological clap trap.
Ever considered reading a science or mainstream source, instead of staying in your right wing bubble?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#248 Jan 23, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but it seems like NASA must be of two minds on this subject.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-...

topic: NASA has released a new study that may prove global-warming alarmists have been wrong all along.

Data from NASA's Terra satellite covering the period 2000 through 2011 shows that when the earth's climate heats up, the atmosphere appears to be better able to channel the heat to outer space...Co-author of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama's Earth System Science Center, said in a press release, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
Tsk Tsk: you are demonstrating you ARE in that CLUELESS right wing bubble ..again!!!

Yahoo published the same article but retracted it later because it was shown later to be false -- see NASA scientists proved Roy Spencer had used bad data -- proving this using weather balloons to collaborate his UAH temperatures.

Indeed the errors were so egregious, the editor of the journal that accepted Spencer's paper stated it should never have been published and he resigned.

PROOF:

<<Scientists already had noticed that there were issues with the way the Alabama researchers handled data from NOAA-9, one satellite that collected temperature data for a short time in the mid-1980s. But Po-Chedley and Fu [of NASA] are the first to offer a calculation related to the NOAA-9 data for adjusting the Alabama findings, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

To come up with the correction, Po-Chedley and Fu closely examined the way the three teams interpreted readings from NOAA-9 and compared it to data collected from weather balloons about the temperature of the troposphere.

They found that the Alabama research incorrectly factors in the changing temperature of the NOAA-9 satellite itself and devised a method to estimate the impact on the Alabama trend.

Like how a baker might use an oven thermometer to gauge the true temperature of an oven and then adjust the oven dial accordingly, the researchers must adjust the temperature data collected by the satellites.

That's because the calibration of the instruments used to measure Earth's temperature is different after the satellites are launched, and because the satellite readings are calibrated by the temperature of the satellite itself. The groups have each separately made their adjustments in part by comparing the satellite's data to that of other satellites in service at the same time.

Once Po-Chedley and Fu apply the correction, the Alabama-Huntsville record shows 0.21 F warming per decade in the tropics since 1979, instead of its previous finding of 0.13 F warming. Surface measurements show the temperature of Earth in the tropics has increased by about 0.21 F per decade.

The Remote Sensing Systems and NOAA reports continue to reflect warming of the troposphere that's close to the surface measurements, with warming of 0.26 F per decade and 0.33 F respectively.
>>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/...

==========

And the editor of Remote Sensing (the Journal that accepted the Roy Spencer paper) RESIGNED IN DISGRACE, after seeing the NASA proof against Roy Spencer, stating the paper should never have been published!

It's been noted the editor was not in his area of expertise... the journal does not "routinely deal with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

But the editor thought it was still the right thing to do was to resign, because of its egregious errors.

It's YOUR error too, Tina

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#249 Jan 23, 2013
tina anne wrote:
I think you are very confused who is and is not NASA here.

James Hansen has been the head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies since 1981.

He began his career doing primary research modeling Venus' atmosphere to explain why the planet is hotter than Mercury.(Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2) This naturally led to the same computer codes being used to understand the Earth's atmosphere. He used these codes to study the effects that aerosols and trace gases through the development and use of global climate models.

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system.

Pat Michaels has a reputation as the #1 American shill for the oil/energy industry. He got a paper published (McKitrick and Michaels, 2004), but made a glaring egregious mistake that invalidated his results.

<<Canadian Ross McKitrick and Michaels published a paper searching for "economic" signals in the temperature record....The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.

{But oops} the authors mistakenly used degrees rather than the required radians in calculating the cosine functions used to spatially weight their estimates**. This mistake rendered every calculation in the paper incorrect, and the conclusions invalid - to our knowledge, however, the paper has not yet been retracted.

Remarkably, there were still other independent and equally fundamental errors in the paper that would have rendered it entirely invalid anyway. To the journals credit, they published a criticism of the paper by Benestad (2004) to this effect

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

#3 Energy Shill:

Pat Michaels income comes primarily from a solely owned consulting company named New Hope where he performs "global warming services" for his customers. He tries to keep his customers anonymous.

-- Here is where utility companies are hiring him for $50k and $100K a pop . He lost one client after their identity was identified (by another one of Michael's customers.)

This is from the affidavit filed by Michaels and has his name attached to the text:

"Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity. Also, in 2006, when a $100,000 contract between New Hope and electric utility Intermountain Rural Electric Association to synthesize and research new findings on global warming became public knowledge, a public campaign was initiated to change the composition of the board of directors so that there would be no additional funding. That campaign was successful, as Intermountain has not provided further funding."

The entire affidavit filed by Michaels is here -- so check it out.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/e/e5/GreenM...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print...

In addition to the utility companies and the auto industry, Michaels has admitted to getting at least 40% of his funding from oil companies

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Patriot 10,091
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Mothra 61,479
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 1,857
Arctic Summer Ice all gone by 2040? (Dec '06) 11 hr Same Same 22
News Extent of Arctic summer sea ice at record low l... (Sep '11) 11 hr Same Same 116
News Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost A... 14 hr Chilli J 167
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) Sun Earthling-1 3,302
More from around the web