New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

daisypusher wrote: It is bizarre that people focus on the term alarmist when the term denier (which has much more negative connotation) is used repeated by the "alarmists" even in Nature articles. Get with the data instead of the illogical ad hominem attacks. Is the data correct or not? Is the interpretation correct or not?

How do you figure "denier" has "much more negative connotations? If someone called me a "denier" of the idea that say, crop circles were made by alien beings, I wouldn't feel it was a negative.

"Alarmist" on the other hand, implies someone who not only has an agenda but is deliberately hyping up the threat in a deceitful manner.

The opposite of deny is to affirm. What's the opposite of "alarmist"?

AspenValley wrote: [How do you figure "denier" has "much more negative connotations?

Holocaust denial

And this is precisely why the term denier was used by the alarmist propagandists.

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote: [How do you figure "denier" has "much more negative connotations?

Holocaust denial

Ok.

But is it the term "denial" that is so negative or is it the fact that it is coupled with an emotionally charged word like "holocaust" that makes it that way? Or is it seen as negative in this connotation because there is so much evidence for the fact that the holocaust occurred, implying a "denialist" would have to be somewhat outside of reality to believe that way?

Would you object to being called a crop circle denialist? Or an "9/11 as inside job" denialist?

There is no move to discredit those other groups by the term denier like there is with Global Warming - where is the money for discrediting crop circle or inside job people. You actually make our point.

Is your problem with global warming advocates that they are making money?

daisypusher wrote: There is no move to discredit those other groups by the term denier like there is with Global Warming - where is the money for discrediting crop circle or inside job people. You actually make our point.

On the contrary. There is no need for "money" to discredit "theories" for which there is no body of credible evidence.

Crop circles and 9/11 conspiracy theories lack credibility, that is why there is no stigma about being called a denier of them.

The fact that a person might get his panties in a bunch at being described as a GW "denier" suggests that at some level he understands that he is not standing on the side of credibility.

You guys need to get out more:

GOODMAN, Ellen. "Global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers"

Ellen Goodman (born April 11 1941) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, columnist and author of many books. She was researcher and reporter for Newsweek magazine between 1963 and 1965, and has worked as an associate editor at the Boston Globe since 1967 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Goodman ).

Ellen Goodman on comparing climate change skeptics with deniers of the Jewish Holocaust (1967): “By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get. I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” [1].

[1]. Ellen Goodman, “No change in political climate”, Boston Globe, 9 February 2009: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... l_climate/ .

http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/goodman-ellen-1

You deniers seem to be in denial............

daisypusher wrote: You guys need to get out more:

GOODMAN, Ellen. "Global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers"

Ellen Goodman (born April 11 1941) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, columnist and author of many books. She was researcher and reporter for Newsweek magazine between 1963 and 1965, and has worked as an associate editor at the Boston Globe since 1967 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Goodman ).

Ellen Goodman on comparing climate change skeptics with deniers of the Jewish Holocaust (1967): “By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get. I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” [1].

[1]. Ellen Goodman, “No change in political climate”, Boston Globe, 9 February 2009: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... l_climate/ .

http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/goodman-ellen-1

You deniers seem to be in denial............

Maybe she has a point?

If global warming should end up killing millions or even billions of people....

Morally speaking, how would that make a global warming denier different than a holocaust denier who insists millions of people did not die? In fact, it makes them arguably worse, because if their denial led to people chosing not to take measures that might have saved those lives, they may have to share in the responsibility for those deaths.

And again....if global warming isn't credible why would you object to being called a denier?

Just because radiated heat is more than expected, does not totally negate global warming. We do know that the earth is rebounding from a former ice age. We know from independent data that sea level has been rising over the past 10,000 years. Together these facts are consistent with a gradual warming of the earth. What the new data does is question computer models and heat flow away from earth. Remember, garbage in = garbage out when it comes to computers. Too many put too much faith in computer models because the computer is unbiased. BS. Computers inherit the data they are given and when it comes to global warming, far too little is known about the extrinsic controls that govern long term temperature changes on earth. That aside, the satellite data does allow for an adjustment to be made. Instead of the assumption used in generating the model, there is now data that can be put into place to generate new models.

Personally, I view the global change as not related to CO2 emissions which is the PC bandwagon these days. Instead, I see it is an ongoing process that man has little affect on and the new data only supports the the greenhouse impact of CO2 emissions does not have the effect theorized. It is an interpretation after all, and those are subject to change as new data becomes available to replace those scientist take educated guess about.

Years of observation about how temperature and humidity changes take place in the middle east establish they have a cyclical nature. We all know this in terms of summer vs winter temperature changes, but that is not what I'm talking about. It's more short term. For example the heat and at a later time, the humidity arrive for a day then go away for a couple of weeks before returning, but this time the return is for two days. The next cycle begins not two weeks later, but about 10 days later and last a little longer before returning to normal. The pattern is one of decreasing time between the onset of a cycle and an increase in the length of heat and humidity. It is a compression of cycles with time until you end up with one long continuous period of heat and high humidity. I envision the same kind of cyclicity exists on the larger scale of global warming where at some point we will end up with average global temperatures that are a few degrees higher than normal and all the ice will melt around the globe, sea level will rise as a result, but it is hundreds of years in the making as indicated by the decelerating trend of sea level rise measured over the past 10,000 years, not the short term acceleration climatologist recognize and project into the future. This is because of the cyclicity I discussed above. Those are my thoughts on the matter.