New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Trlsmn]

Your numbers are incorrect and have already been discussed in the original thread. It also highlights the stupidity of starting another thread when there's already one that has hashed out most of these arguments already.

We are having a sale this week on threads. You get this second thread at no extra charge to you the consumer.

 

[deadeye]

Seven years ago we were told that GWB was in direct communication with the Almighty? What happened?

Obama didnt pay the phone bill.............

 

[deadeye]

Your numbers are incorrect and have already been discussed in the original thread. It also highlights the stupidity of starting another thread when there's already one that has hashed out most of these arguments already.

So why would you be involved with this one if it has already been hashed out in the other thread? Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[swoop]

If Al Gore is a man ?? I guess global warming is man made...

 

[ZeroRing]

That's a very good question.

C02 as a percentage of atmosphere...

...in 1850 (pre-indstrial revolution) = 0.028 of 1% (280 parts per million)

...in 2010 = 0.039 of 1% (390 parts per million)

Is an increase of 0.011 of 1% over 160 years a large increase? This is equivalent to an $11 dollar raise if you make $100,000 a year.

Keith (By contrast, the largest greenhouse gas, water vapor = up to 4% (40,000 parts per million), yet water vapor in never included in the climate modelling.)

What you seem to forget is that an increase of 0.011 from 0.028 is an increase of 39.2857% and everyone know that that means the world is about to end!!! Unless of course we "do something" right now.... it's for the CHILDREN!!!

 

[MikeE]

I guess you didn't understand the question, my fault. Let me be clearer, when CO2 is taxed and regulated who do you think will pay? Will the rich polluters just absorb the hit or will they pass it on to the poor and dying middle class?



So let me get this straight, you're telling me Global Warming now causes war? LOL! People haven't needed a reason to kill each other throughout the history of mankind. The causes of war are about money and power period, always has been, always will be.

And resources...

 

[OcelotZ3]

From the article itself:

real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The article you posted says "new data blows hole in theory", yet the article itself says that the data has long shown that the "alarmist" models are off... I take that to be the most extreme models, which probably were just created to indicate a worst-case scenario (+6 sigma for example).

So what exactly are we supposed to take away from this "new" data, which just supports data collected in the past, regardless of which side of the debate one is on?

 

[Trlsmn]

From the article itself:



The article you posted says "new data blows hole in theory", yet the article itself says that the data has long shown that the "alarmist" models are off... I take that to be the most extreme models, which probably were just created to indicate a worst-case scenario (+6 sigma for example).

So what exactly are we supposed to take away from this "new" data, which just supports data collected in the past, regardless of which side of the debate one is on?

I've never heard the phrase "6 Sigma" used outside of business improvement model relevance, kind of like Kaizen Blitz. What is "+6 Sigma"?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I have quit following the global warming threads, but I would like to put forth one bit of information to those that want to argue with the those that wish to deny the truth of global climate change. That fact is that you cannot argue with them. It is no longer a debate of facts or reason. It has become an article of faith. They have faith in their beliefs and faith in their right wing media. They have faith in the idea that corporations know what is best. You add that to the fact they so badly want to believe and their faith becomes insurmountable. They become willing to ignore fact or reason in favor of their faith. They ignore obvious bias of their sources, they ignore basic scientific facts, they ignore the fact that the same think tanks and interests that are saying climate change is not happening now are the same ones that said cigarettes are not bad for you back in the 70's and 80's when they were hired by the tobacco lobbies. They have crossed the threshold into zealotry. You can't reason with zealots.

 

[Kevatc]

I've noticed there is global warming during the day and global cooling at night. There. Now both sides can be happy.

 

[deadeye]

I've noticed there is global warming during the day and global cooling at night. There. Now both sides can be happy.

I'm sure that you could get a huge government grant to verify those findings.

 

[riverrat373]

I've noticed there is global warming during the day and global cooling at night. There. Now both sides can be happy.

 

[dmancornell]

I've never heard the phrase "6 Sigma" used outside of business improvement model relevance, kind of like Kaizen Blitz. What is "+6 Sigma"?

6 sigma is a statistical term meaning 6 standard deviations off the mean. From a modelling point of view it probably means whatever knobs or parameters they used were totally ridiculous.

That said, those alarmist models are usually the ones making it to the government studies which in turn is used to justify yet more state theft from private economies. Governments love court academics because it lends scientific credibility to their old-fashioned criminal thievery.

 

[dmancornell]

I have quit falling the global warming threads, but I would like to put forth one bit of information to those that want to argue with the those that wish to deny the truth of global climate change. That fact is that you cannot argue with them. It is no longer a debate of facts or reason. It has become an article of faith. They have faith in their beliefs and faith in their right wing media. They have faith in the idea that corporations know what is best. You add that to the fact they so badly want to believe and their faith becomes insurmountable. They become willing to ignore fact or reason in favor of their faith. They ignore obvious bias of their sources, they ignore basic scientific facts, they ignore the fact that the same think tanks and interests that are saying climate change is not happening now are the same ones that said cigarettes are not bad for you back in the 70's and 80's when they were hired by the tobacco lobbies. They have crossed the threshold into zealotry. You can't reason with zealots.

Are you saying there are no pro-anthropogenic global warming (henceforth AGW) zealots? I'm sure global warming exists, the issue at hand is if man-made pollutants is responsible, and how much so. The vast majority of people proposing a political/economic "solution" for global warming believe in AGW, which is an entirely different phenomenon compared to natural warming, and much harder to prove.

If the pro-AGW side relies on facts and science, why did the University of East Anglia CRU blatantly falsify data for their IPCC reports? Just google "global warming CRU code analysis" for examples. Here is one: Armed and Dangerous » Blog Archive » Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins

I'm an electrical engineer, not a statistician, but I have taken plenty of college statistics courses and got years of programming experience. My professional analysis of the CRU modelling is that it is a deliberate lie designed to promote a political agenda. No simple mistake can be that pervasive. The programmers even left humorous comments in the code making fun of the fraudulent data manipulation.

The scientific method teaches one to arrive at conclusions *after* examining the experimental data, the CRU model had the political conclusion at the outset and cooked the raw data to match the conclusion. Only zealots would spend that much effort trying to prop up a fraudulent model.

I'm not surprised they continue to get funding. Governments and their Wall Street cronies are already setting up carbon trading markets in which trillions of dollars in the private economy will be forcibly transferred to the state. Carbon credits are nothing more than theft on a massive scale, AGW is the justification, and the CRU zealots provide the academic cover.