No, new data does not "blow a gaping ...

No, new data does not "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism"

There are 69 comments on the Discover story from Jul 29, 2011, titled No, new data does not "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism". In it, Discover reports that:

I received a few emails, tweets, and comments on the blog yesterday asking about an Op/Ed article in Forbes magazine that claims that new NASA data will "blow [a] gaping hole in global warming alarmism". Except, as it turns out, not so much.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Discover.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
litesong

Everett, WA

#1 Jul 29, 2011
Spencer said the same thing 2.5 years ago & posted on his own site.
//////////
December 27, 2008 (last modified December 29, 2008) ABSTRACT Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3-layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
//////////
Science had a big yawn for Spencer 2.5 years ago, determining that Spencer made errors. Nothing has changed, as he continues to force square pegs into round holes.
Northie

Aiea, HI

#2 Jul 29, 2011
Spencer's resume' and Rex Tillerson's seem to have so very much in common:

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.

Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that "anti-smoking advocates" are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.

Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute

Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Spencer and ICECAP

Spencer is listed as an "expert" by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP).

ICECAP is a global warming skeptic organization that believes we should be preparing ourselves for the next ice age.

ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D'Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#4 Jul 29, 2011
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#5 Jul 30, 2011
First, let's get the actual FACTS out.

There have been countless Tax Payer grants totaling BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for these QUACK AGW so called "scientists" to research AGW.

They have published thousands of so called "peer reviewed" papers and produced a bunch of useless "computer models".

So what is the result of all the wasted Tax Payer BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for this CRAP RESEARCH?

There is NOT:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth

They SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST.

AND, EVERY MEASUREMENT "EVER DONE" PROVES THAT IT IS "NOT POSSIBLE" FOR A COLDER ATMOSPHERE TO HEAT UP A WARMER EARTH....EVER!

If there are Any AGW'ers out there that dispute these FACTS, then POST these Phantom Laws of Science and Phantom Measurements!

There will be ZERO response from the AGW CULT on this because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO POST SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

Like all AGW CULT MEMBERS, they will ALL RUN FOR THE HILLS when confronted with this TRUTH.

Watch the replies to this Post and Learn!
----------
So now we have BILLIONS of DOLLARS WASTED on this Fantasy AGW that has ZERO Science and ZERO Measurements to support it and all Actual measurements prove that DOES NOT EXIST.

So what have all the AGW'er CRAP SCIENTISTS done to keep the AGW GRAVY TRAIN MONEY FLOWING for this obvious FRAUD?

- They spend countless more Tax Payer dollars to spread "FRAUDULENT ALARMISM" for an IMAGINARY AGW "DRAGON" that DOES NOT EXIST.

- This happens right from the multi-nation funded UN fraudulent clearing house source of "alarmism", The IPCC, including ALL the AGW FRAUD "scientists" that form the so called "consensus" that the AGW CULT refers to....CONSTANTLY.

Here is a listing of articles displaying the AGW ALARMISM CRAP that has been TAX PAYER FUNDED, lapped up by the Media and reported as NEWS FACTS.

A complete list of things caused by AGW...that DOES NOT EXIST.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Click on any of the LINKS and read what the AGW FRAUDS have to say.

In just about every LINK there is some AGW QUACK "SCIENTIST" that received "grant money" to investigate the role that Global Warming has played on each of these subjects!

This has to be the most Pathetic list of Fraudulent Articles ever published in all Human History!

All based on Tax Payer funded AGW FRAUD "science" THAT DOES NOT EXIST and is used to ALARM THE PUBLIC into wasting even more Tax Payer money for even MORE GRANTS TO THE AGW FRAUD "scientists".
----------
The FRAUD and the ALARMISM that these Greedy AGW "scientists" have unleashed on the Public is the biggest Scam in the history of the World.

But, that is just the "tip of the iceberg" of what is actually happening.

The Marxist and Enviromental Anti-Human Cults, that includes the AGW CULT, have "controlled and managed" the AGW SCAM from it's very beginning.

They have the "real agenda" for the AGW SCAM and how it is and will be used to implement their fanatical beliefs.

This is evident from the very words of the main founder of the IPCC, Maurice Strong.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring about?" --- Maurice Strong
http://www.quotesandpoem.com/quotes/showquote...

-------
continued...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#7 Jul 30, 2011
"Is it any wonder that scientists have such a bad reputation among the taxpayers who pay them to play in their ivory tower sandboxes? They can make gloom and doom predictions all day long of events far in the future without ever having to suffer any consequences of being wrong."
Roy Spencer
Northie

Aiea, HI

#8 Jul 30, 2011
"Intelligent design explains similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems ... but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor."

-Roy Spencer http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005...

[Spencer] is a member of the Heartland Institute, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, and the favorite climatologist of Rush Limbaugh. In addition to being skeptical about the existence of climate change, Dr. Spencer also doubts the theory of evolution.

-http://www.exxonsecrets.org/h tml/personfactsheet.php?id=19

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#9 Jul 30, 2011
Funny that this article was just as biased as the one they referenced. One dead giveaway was the phrase, "one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change." There are far more than a few and hundreds if not thousands of climate scientist who have publically denounced the idea. Recent news has shown that if anything that the numbers of climate scientist and I not talking institutes but the actual researchers who still publically support the idea are few and far between. Many of those who did in the past are now remaining quiet.

While the new information will not blow a hole in the idea of man made global warming it will mean that all those models that were predicting the end of the world were flawed in the first place and proves the point that we know less about climate change than many have be claiming.

Now some will claim that spencer is in the pay of this group or that while swooning over thier heros and ignoring that they are also in the pay of one group or another. Or better known as follow the money. I do noticed that unlike Dr Mann, Dr Hansen, CRU, IPCC or a host of others that no one has been able to show that Dr Spencer has lied about it. That he has intentionally falsified anything or done anything in a unscientific manner.
bronck burger

Bayonne, NJ

#10 Jul 30, 2011
HA-HA-HA-HO-HO-HO SOUNDS LIKE the GLOBAL WARMERS ARE GETTING HOT UNDER the COLLAR.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#11 Jul 31, 2011
tina anne wrote:
I do noticed that unlike Dr Mann, Dr Hansen, CRU, IPCC or a host of others that no one has been able to show that Dr Spencer has lied about it. That he has intentionally falsified anything or done anything in a unscientific manner.
They're working on it, and Andrew Dessler has started the ball rolling by saying, "He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct."
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#12 Jul 31, 2011
Northie wrote:
"Intelligent design explains similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems ... but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor."
-Roy Spencer http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005...
[Spencer] is a member of the Heartland Institute, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, and the favorite climatologist of Rush Limbaugh. In addition to being skeptical about the existence of climate change, Dr. Spencer also doubts the theory of evolution.
-http://www.exxonsecrets.org/h tml/personfactsheet.php?id=19
HAHAHA...HAHAHA....Was this in your "exxonsecrets" website too?
-----
Hmmm, does this mean that John T. Houghton is a nut too?

"Born in Dyserth he moved to Rhyl at the age of two and attended Rhyl Grammar School where he discovered his interest in science which he pursued by attending Jesus College, Oxford. He was brought up as a Calvinistic Methodist in the Presbyterian Church of Wales and has remained a strong Christian throughout his life and sees science and Christianity as strengthening each other and believes strongly in the connection between Christianity and environmentalism. Houghton's evangelical Christianity combined with his scientific background has made him a significant voice in evangelical Christian circles. Winning the support of Richard Cizik one of the most prominent Evangelical lobbyists in the United States is a notable example of how Houghton has had a significant effect. He is currently an elder at Aberdovey Presbyterian Church.

Houghton is currently Honorary Scientist of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Meteorological Office; Honorary Scientist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory; a Trustee of the Shell Foundation; and Chairman of the John Ray Initiative.[3]

Previously Sir John was
a Member of the UK Government Panel on Sustainable Development (1994–2000)
Chairman, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1992–98)
Chairman or Co-Chairman, Scientific Assessment Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988–2002)
Director General (later Chief Executive), UK Meteorological Office (1983–91)
Director Appleton, Science and Engineering Research Council (also Deputy Director, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)(1979–83);
Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Oxford University (1976–83)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton

Besides being a Presbyterian Christian supported by a prominent Evangelical lobbyist, he is also connected to BIG OIL ...a Trustee of the Shell Foundation (aka a "fossil fuel shill")

He must be a NUT and every organization he is connected to like the IPCC, the Hadley Centre and the UK Meteorological Office must be NUTS too.

Right?
----------
Continued...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#13 Jul 31, 2011
Continuation..
----------
Rajendra K. Pachauri is the head GURU of the IPCC....and a HINDU.

"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pach...

Pachauri, besides being "a religious NUT", is also a "fossil fuel shill" that OWNS a Texas Oil Company and has accepted money from BP to promote his latest " “smutty” romance novel, Return to Almora laced with steamy sex, lots of sex. Oh, and Shirley MacLaine."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

He must be a NUT and every organization he is connected to, like the IPCC, must be NUTS, too....RIGHT?
----------
----------
How about these quotes:

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth."

Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: "Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with 'divine,' its transcendence into higher forms of life."

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quo...

This sounds a lot like the Anti-Human GAIA Cult Religion, founded by James Lovelock (who worked at NASA), that so many AGW'ers and Wacko-Enviromentalists use as their religion.

They must also be NUTS...RIGHT?
----------
----------
The AGW CULT always "Screams" when somebody that is not in "Their Religious Cult" says ANYTHING and ALWAYS calls them "fossil fuel shills".

Of course, they ALWAYS IGNORE the members of "Their Religious Cult" that are Christian, Hindu, Gaia Cult etc that are also "fossil fuel shills".

Also, the AGW CULT will ALWAYS LIE saying that AGW is based on Science and Facts when EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

That's just MORE PROOF that AGW'ers are LYING CULT MEMBERS and HAVE THEIR OWN "ANTI-HUMAN" RELIGION.

Watch the AGW'ers IGNORE THIS POST since it exposes them to the TRUTH.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#14 Jul 31, 2011
tina anne wrote:
Funny that this article was just as biased as the one they referenced. One dead giveaway was the phrase, "one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change." There are far more than a few and hundreds if not thousands of climate scientist who have publically denounced the idea. Recent news has shown that if anything that the numbers of climate scientist and I not talking institutes but the actual researchers who still publically support the idea are few and far between. Many of those who did in the past are now remaining quiet.
While the new information will not blow a hole in the idea of man made global warming it will mean that all those models that were predicting the end of the world were flawed in the first place and proves the point that we know less about climate change than many have be claiming.
Now some will claim that spencer is in the pay of this group or that while swooning over thier heros and ignoring that they are also in the pay of one group or another. Or better known as follow the money. I do noticed that unlike Dr Mann, Dr Hansen, CRU, IPCC or a host of others that no one has been able to show that Dr Spencer has lied about it. That he has intentionally falsified anything or done anything in a unscientific manner.
More fantasy from Tina.

In fact 97% of actively publishing climate scientists say the world is warming and we are responsible.

Of course Roy Spencer is one of the handful who doesn't agree.

No, Roy's paper doesn't show that the climate models are wrong. It perhaps shows that his model is wrong, but his is a model that other climate scientists say is a bad model, and other models which other climate scientists say are better don't have the problem his model does.

Many other climate scientists have pointed out that Roy has talked a lot of rubbish about his paper in press releases and interviews with sympathetic news organisations- that it shows NASA data indicates less warming than expected or that AGW is simply a hoax- claims which are not justified by the paper itself. This is very much not the scientific manner.

Other climate scientists have also pointed out that claims made in the paper are not justified by the evidence in the paper or are simply nonsense- lower climate sensitivity than expected "cloud forcing"- that the model used in the paper is a bad choice, and that the data analysis is poor. They have not claimed fraud- just that it's a bad paper, and given the reasons.

So once again Roy is on the fringe of mainstream science, with the majority of scientists saying he's tried to fit the data to his preconceived ideas again, rather than following the evidence.

Of course you might see him as a maverick and consider the possibility that he's right, despite the fact that he's been wrong so often before, and that that so many other scientists in the field say he's wrong again.

Or you could consider the possibility that his strong ideological and religious convictions that AGW cannot be true are blinkering him to the truth.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15 Jul 31, 2011
None of the models have been experimentally tested; climate change mitigation is pseudoscience.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Aug 1, 2011
"FACT": Many scientific academies agree; catastrophic Global Warming is a Fact.

The Reality is... Not a single scientific academy states that 'catastrophic global warming' is a Fact.

Post Script:
Not the conspicuous absence of any documented challenge to this post.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#18 Aug 2, 2011
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
More fantasy from Tina.
In fact 97% of actively publishing climate scientists say the world is warming and we are responsible...

...Or you could consider the possibility that his strong ideological and religious convictions that AGW cannot be true are blinkering him to the truth.
"THE TRUTH": Many scientific academies agree; catastrophic Global Warming is a Fact.

The Reality is... Not a single scientific academy states that 'catastrophic global warming' is a Fact.

Post Script:
Note the conspicuous absence of any documented challenge to this post.

-koolaid

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#19 Aug 2, 2011
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
"FACT": Many scientific academies agree; catastrophic Global Warming is a Fact.
The Reality is... Not a single scientific academy states that 'catastrophic global warming' is a Fact.
Post Script:
Not the conspicuous absence of any documented challenge to this post.
"Catastrophic" is a subjective term, so you won't see scientists using it.

What all the science academies do say is that the world has warmed and we are responsible.

The risks are clear enough for the scientific academies to consider action necessary:
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/0607200...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#20 Aug 2, 2011
FuGyou wrote:
What all the science academies do say is that the world has warmed and we are responsible.
When rambling on about science academies agreeing, you alarmists always leave out one very important point, not all scientists are qualified to agree.
Science academies in general do not agree with anything specific, only some members of those academies, with expertise that bears directly on the matter agree, but not all.
Internet alarmists are well qualified to agree by arrogance or ignorance.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#21 Aug 2, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>When rambling on about science academies agreeing, you alarmists always leave out one very important point, not all scientists are qualified to agree.
Science academies in general do not agree with anything specific, only some members of those academies, with expertise that bears directly on the matter agree, but not all.
Internet alarmists are well qualified to agree by arrogance or ignorance.
They agree that warming is real, we are responsible, and the threat is real enough to justify prompt action- that seems specific enough.

I assume you meant to say that the academies do not take a vote, and that if they did, the vote would not be unanimous.

If so, that just shows your misunderstanding of consensus. Consensus is not a vote- it arises from scientific bodies looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion that a particular position is not only justified by the evidence, no other position is credible.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#22 Aug 2, 2011
Fair Game cites Climate mitigators:
Conclusion
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC
principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change... to help develop and implement
the national and international response to the challenge of climate change.

G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past
greenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8
nations are committed to showing leadership in addressing climate change and assisting developing nations to meet the challenges of adaptation and mitigation....:
· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
· Launch an international study to explore scientifically informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognizing their legitimate development rights.
· Show leadership in developing and deploying clean
energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.
The academies are wrong, more CO2 creates a better world. These conclusions aren't supported by experimental tests, all these scientific institutions without a single successful test of their conclusions - shameful political academics posing as science.

Climate change mitigation is pseudoscience.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#23 Aug 2, 2011
FuGyou wrote:
I assume
“I assume a great deal...”
~ Noel Coward on Assumption

“When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.”
~ Oscar Wilde on Assumption

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 min karl44 9,569
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr SoE 10,310
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) 2 hr North Mountain 105
News Five times humanity was almost wiped out 3 hr play 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr Chimney1 29,450
Legendary VISION Spinner Plus First Batch Presale 21 hr perty 1
News Spike and Goldmic.com Believe in Bringing the P... (Aug '08) Wed eddy 2
More from around the web