New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Schneibster]

Woodbutcher, If you haven't encountered one of these discussions before, they have meaningless quibbles about every one of those statements, most of which are lies "supported" by cherry-picked evidence, which they trot out every time someone reasonable like you says something reasonable like that. After you finish hacking them up, they try to game the system to get you kicked off the site so you can't embarrass them any more.

Just so you know.

[mistermack]

mistermack, in your understanding, what is a greenhouse gas. It seems that you do not understand basic chemistry at all. The greenhouse gas mechanism has been an accepted scientific fact since the 1800's, more GG, more heat is retained. Feedback is simple , heat GG containing material, release more GG, retain more heat for more heating of GG containing material etc. Tundra contains methane and is warming up releasing GG. Clathrates in the ocean can release huge amounts of methane. Deforestation causes less CO2 absorption. Farming releases GG's. Coal and oil release GG's. We're doing this. This means we are fastening the onset of a warm period with its change of local weather conditions. Fucking simple.

You're missing the point, Woodbutcher.
NOBODY is arguing that there is no greenhouse effect. Without it, the Earth would have been an icy ball with virtually no life on it.
You think it's simple, but you didn't even mention the MAIN greenhouse gas, which is water vapour.
You didn't mention volcanoes, and how they can affect the climate. You didn't mention aerosols, and their effect on solar rays, or clouds. You didn't mention the sun, how it can vary, how the solar wind can affect cosmic rays that cause clouds. You didn't mention cloud cover, or the albedo of ice sheets.
You didn't mention the four glaciations in a row that the Earth has sunk into, and come out of, in the last four hundred thousand years. You didn't mention what a tiny percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 or methane.
Read a little, and you'll find it's not as simple as you think.

[Schneibster]

You're missing the point, Woodbutcher.

Or then again maybe not so much.

[Woodbutcher]

mistermack, in your understanding, what is a greenhouse gas. It seems that you do not understand basic chemistry at all. The greenhouse gas mechanism has been an accepted scientific fact since the 1800's, more GG, more heat is retained. Feedback is simple , heat GG containing material, release more GG, retain more heat for more heating of GG containing material etc. Tundra contains methane and is warming up releasing GG. Clathrates in the ocean can release huge amounts of methane. Deforestation causes less CO2 absorption. Farming releases GG's. Coal and oil release GG's. We're doing this. This means we are fastening the onset of a warm period with its change of local weather conditions. Fucking simple.

You're missing the point, Woodbutcher.
NOBODY is arguing that there is no greenhouse effect. Without it, the Earth would have been an icy ball with virtually no life on it.
You think it's simple, but you didn't even mention the MAIN greenhouse gas, which is water vapour.
You didn't mention volcanoes, and how they can affect the climate. You didn't mention aerosols, and their effect on solar rays, or clouds. You didn't mention the sun, how it can vary, how the solar wind can affect cosmic rays that cause clouds. You didn't mention cloud cover, or the albedo of ice sheets.
You didn't mention the four glaciations in a row that the Earth has sunk into, and come out of, in the last four hundred thousand years. You didn't mention what a tiny percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 or methane.
Read a little, and you'll find it's not as simple as you think.

I have read more than a dozen books on the subject, including the IPCC reports. What I find amusing in your case is that anything published by a scientist is immediately labelled as biased and agenda-laden, and blogs by weathermen and people from oil companies as the truth. I think your paranoia is reversed! .Your views on other issues entertain me as well. Keep up the good work! .

[mistermack]

I have read more than a dozen books on the subject, including the IPCC reports. What I find amusing in your case is that anything published by a scientist is immediately labelled as biased and agenda-laden, and blogs by weathermen and people from oil companies as the truth. I think your paranoia is reversed! .Your views on other issues entertain me as well. Keep up the good work! .

Not ANYTHING said by a scientist. Dr. Roy Spencer, who produced the report that this thread is about, is a scientist.
All the alarmists immediately labelled him as biased and agenda-laden.
Funny that. I suppose that's ok, because it's what YOU want to hear, and YOUR paranoia is reversed.
( whatever that means ).
I'm glad you've read more than a dozen books on the subject. You hide it well.

[Woodbutcher]

I have read more than a dozen books on the subject, including the IPCC reports. What I find amusing in your case is that anything published by a scientist is immediately labelled as biased and agenda-laden, and blogs by weathermen and people from oil companies as the truth. I think your paranoia is reversed! .Your views on other issues entertain me as well. Keep up the good work! .

Not ANYTHING said by a scientist. Dr. Roy Spencer, who produced the report that this thread is about, is a scientist.
All the alarmists immediately labelled him as biased and agenda-laden.
Funny that. I suppose that's ok, because it's what YOU want to hear, and YOUR paranoia is reversed.
( whatever that means ).
I'm glad you've read more than a dozen books on the subject. You hide it well.

I do not educate the learning impaired. They're on their own.

[Animavore]

Not ANYTHING said by a scientist. Dr. Roy Spencer, who produced the report that this thread is about, is a scientist.
All the alarmists immediately labelled him as biased and agenda-laden.
Funny that. I suppose that's ok, because it's what YOU want to hear, and YOUR paranoia is reversed.
( whatever that means ).
I'm glad you've read more than a dozen books on the subject. You hide it well.

No. That Spencer was an Exxon employee was incidental. The main reason his 'paper' got criticised was because he rigged his results. Please stop lying. Contrary to what you're thinking you are not saving face by doing so.

[mistermack]

Not ANYTHING said by a scientist. Dr. Roy Spencer, who produced the report that this thread is about, is a scientist.
All the alarmists immediately labelled him as biased and agenda-laden.
Funny that. I suppose that's ok, because it's what YOU want to hear, and YOUR paranoia is reversed.
( whatever that means ).
I'm glad you've read more than a dozen books on the subject. You hide it well.

No. That Spencer was an Exxon employee was incidental. The main reason his 'paper' got criticised was because he rigged his results. Please stop lying. Contrary to what you're thinking you are not saving face by doing so.

His "paper" got peer reviewed. It's been criticised by rabid bloggers on rabid websites, and IPCC members. People who have very good reasons to blag it.

And what is this "face" I want to save? Is that somehow important to you?
I don't give a toss what strangers think about someone they have never met.

[Animavore]

Lol! His paper was rubbised due to serious rigging. Spencer wouldn't even defend his own bullshit because he knew he lied.

That you're still clutching on to this is remarkable.

[mistermack]

Someone with a little more clout than me, making the same points :

Nobel Prizewinner declares global warming a "religion"

So I was inventing, was I, when I said that criticising manmade global warming was forbidden?

[Animavore]

Lolz. This is desperate.

[mistermack]

Lolz. This is desperate.

No offence animavore, but this guy has clout that you lack.
We are constantly told that "this or that scientist is convinced of AGW, so you should be as well".
This demonstrates how stupid that argument is.

In 2007, the APS adopted an official statement that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities were changing the atmosphere in ways that affected the Earth's climate.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring," the APS stated. "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

"In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

This is EXACTLY the point I constantly make. There is NOTHING incontrovertible about AGW, even the IPCC only claim that it's LIKELY, and yet people like you treat it as religious truth.
This is meant to be Rational-ia !!