New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.
......,snip.

No where do they discuss the conclusions for the lawyer for the Heartland Institute, nor do they discuss any gaping hold in Alarmisn". This is pure unadulterated garbage, but then again what can you expect from conservatives like Viking.

Is there any way at all that you can discuss the actual topic without the political BS of conservatives vs liberal? Not everyone fits into those pigeon holes you love to use. Satellite data is the topic and as the article points out there are significant problems in trying to interpret data.

I agree, RD...

STDS has been calling people liars for some time now, and I don't care for the tone of his posts. And it's uncalled for in this thread since Viking (OK, I will support Viking in this case) did post the original paper some 7 hours before STDS went crazy after ignoring Viking's post of the original paper. Not the first time he's done it either.

Science Chic wrote:

The Viking wrote: Here is the actual study......

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Thank you for linking to the actual study. After perusing it, I didn't see any sentence anywhere in which global warming is debunked, as is claimed by the Heritage Institutes lawyer (yes, that's who James Taylor is - he also wrote the crappy Fox News article trying to make it look like sea level data was being manipulated - see here for that episode). What this study might do is help to improve the accuracy of the climate models, but it in know way refutes the data of global warming.
...

It doesn't debunk global warming in any way. What this is all about is climate sensitivity to feedbacks - Spencer has been arguing for some time that it is low due to clouds.

Here's some background on the Spencer paper if you want some reading material -

First Spencer & Braswell published in the Journal of Geophysical Research

"On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing"
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... R-2010.pdf

This was followed by a paper by Andrew Dessler in Science.

"A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade"
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Dessler used the same CERES data from instruments on the Terra satellite that Spencer & Brasswell did and determined that the models do a fair job simulating the feedbacks that Spencer & Braswell say don't (something James Taylor never bothers to mention).

This latest paper by Spencer & Braswell is a response to Dessler's paper published in the rather obscure open access journal Remote Sensing:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
I think they chose this journal after they submitted to Science and got rejected

And without going into detail, I will say it now appears that this is not the only major problem with Dessler’s diagnosis of positive cloud feedback from the data he presented. Since we will also be submitting this evidence to Science, and they are very picky about the newsworthiness of their articles, I cannot provide any details.

Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has recently told me Science has been sitting on his critique of Dessler’s paper for months. Science has demonstrated an editorial bias against ’skeptical’ climate papers in recent years, something I hope they will correct.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/on- ... -research/

Then there's the email exchanges between Dessler & Spencer:

Dessler's posts on the email exchanges with Spencer (and Lizden too)
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/

Spencer's post on the email exchange with Dessler:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/des ... -feedback/

NerverMind, thanks for taking time to do some research and providing links. A couple of points here. Rejection by Science can have many different reasons. It by no means only reflects the quality of the science. Reviewers are important in their recommendation of whether the article is "worthy" of publication in Science. I know from first hand experience. Two reviewers thought my paper (Meyer, F. O., 1981, Stromatoporoid growth rhythms and rates: Science, p. 894-895.) was frontier science and another argued it was not news worthy. Had two argued against, it would never have gotten published in Science.

I'm eager to read the e-mail exchanges. Those ought to be revealing. It's not uncommon for scientists to disagree about findings, and experience tells me it is a clear indication that someone missed an important point.

Again, I want to re-emphasize your point. Regardless of the ongoing interpretation of radiation argument, it in no way dismisses global warming and a rising sea level. After all we are putting a well-documented ice age behind us, so the only thing we can do is warm up and melt ice. Sea level fluctuations is something I deal with every day at work. Unlike climatologists, I investigate long term fluctuations and their geologic expression. The geologic record records changes in sea level as far back as the sedimentary record goes. It is not a novel idea. Also the geologic community has spent many decades trying to understand the causes for this. Much evidence suggests astrophysical motions and plate tectonics force sea level changes as well as global climatic change.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.
......,snip.

No where do they discuss the conclusions for the lawyer for the Heartland Institute, nor do they discuss any gaping hold in Alarmisn". This is pure unadulterated garbage, but then again what can you expect from conservatives like Viking.

Is there any way at all that you can discuss the actual topic without the political BS of conservatives vs liberal? Not everyone fits into those pigeon holes you love to use. Satellite data is the topic and as the article points out there are significant problems in trying to interpret data.

I agree, RD...

STDS has been calling people liars for some time now, and I don't care for the tone of his posts. And it's uncalled for in this thread since Viking (OK, I will support Viking in this case) did post the original paper some 7 hours before STDS went crazy after ignoring Viking's post of the original paper. Not the first time he's done it either.

I call BS when I see it. Viking has previously outright lied in his previous posts, then he altered one of my posts and used it as a quote to attack me. He no longer has any credibility at all and all of his posts are suspect. In this particular thread, the article that was linked to was absolute BS. The lawyer for Heartland absolutely distorted the findings in the article that he based his opinion piece on. The Remote Sensing article did not support the title of this thread, as ScienceChic kindly pointed out. It would appear that most of the posters here just look at the headline and don't even read the articles before commenting on them. If you guys are going to push such garbage, expect to be called out on.

I really could care less whether or not you care for the tone of my posts. I do back up my posts with documented facts, and also check the background on any articles that I use, rather than just reposting articles that I have not even read. That some here find my viewpoints objectionable, too bad. At least I can back up posts, unlike most here.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.
......,snip.

No where do they discuss the conclusions for the lawyer for the Heartland Institute, nor do they discuss any gaping hold in Alarmisn". This is pure unadulterated garbage, but then again what can you expect from conservatives like Viking.

Is there any way at all that you can discuss the actual topic without the political BS of conservatives vs liberal? Not everyone fits into those pigeon holes you love to use. Satellite data is the topic and as the article points out there are significant problems in trying to interpret data.

Moreover, what gets reported in the news is often an interpretation of what a scientist says rather than what that scientist actually said. Little words like may or could etc. are critical as they reflect degrees of uncertainty in a scientists mind, yet they are often lost in translation. Global warming is not going to go away any time soon, but I'm certain there will be prolonged arguments over its cause and how rapidly it is happening. You can use short term observed patterns to project forward, but those will have a far greater margin of error than projections based on a more substantial data base. And finally, there is always more than one way to look at something, meaning interpret. It does not mean that one way is right or wrong, it just is different. Continued gathering of information will naturally sort out which interpretation is best. Some people are very good at putting interpretations together on limited data and their insight if significantly ahead of mainstream science is debauched by other scientists, only later to be lauded for their vision. Go figure. In the end, good science will prevail.

Anytime I see an article written by a lawyer working for a suspect organization that is well known for its links to conservative causes (their previous expertise was in rebutting studies that showed links between tobacco smoke and cancer), I will put in terms of political bias. Had the OP originally linked to the study instead of the political opinion article, then your complaint might have justification, but the Taylor article was not scientific, but was politically biased.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.
......,snip.

No where do they discuss the conclusions for the lawyer for the Heartland Institute, nor do they discuss any gaping hold in Alarmisn". This is pure unadulterated garbage, but then again what can you expect from conservatives like Viking.

Is there any way at all that you can discuss the actual topic without the political BS of conservatives vs liberal? Not everyone fits into those pigeon holes you love to use. Satellite data is the topic and as the article points out there are significant problems in trying to interpret data.

I agree, RD...

STDS has been calling people liars for some time now, and I don't care for the tone of his posts. And it's uncalled for in this thread since Viking (OK, I will support Viking in this case) did post the original paper some 7 hours before STDS went crazy after ignoring Viking's post of the original paper. Not the first time he's done it either.

I call BS when I see it. Viking has previously outright lied in his previous posts, then he altered one of my posts and used it as a quote to attack me. He no longer has any credibility at all and all of his posts are suspect. In this particular thread, the article that was linked to was absolute BS. The lawyer for Heartland absolutely distorted the findings in the article that he based his opinion piece on. The Remote Sensing article did not support the title of this thread, as ScienceChic kindly pointed out. It would appear that most of the posters here just look at the headline and don't even read the articles before commenting on them. If you guys are going to push such garbage, expect to be called out on.

I really could care less whether or not you care for the tone of my posts. I do back up my posts with documented facts, and also check the background on any articles that I use, rather than just reposting articles that I have not even read. That some here find my viewpoints objectionable, too bad. At least I can back up posts, unlike most here.

It isn't just me is it who care less for your posts. Fine if you are insistent on being inconsiderate. I'll solve the problem myself just as I have with other inconsiderate people. Certainly your opinion and less than astute insights will not be missed.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I really could care less whether or not you care for the tone of my posts. I do back up my posts with documented facts, and also check the background on any articles that I use, rather than just reposting articles that I have not even read. That some here find my viewpoints objectionable, too bad. At least I can back up posts, unlike most here.

Sorry to go off topic, but you brought up how you back your posts with documented facts...

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

And after you posted it, it was pointed out you were wrong about the "$1 billion per year". No problem, we all make mistakes. But then you posted it again.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

And you still never corrected yourself.

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12881



Back to topic...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Anytime I see an article written by a lawyer working for a suspect organization that is well known for its links to conservative causes (their previous expertise was in rebutting studies that showed links between tobacco smoke and cancer), I will put in terms of political bias. Had the OP originally linked to the study instead of the political opinion article, then your complaint might have justification, but the Taylor article was not scientific, but was politically biased.

Yes, the OP was from a biased article. But again, he posted the actual paper well before you expressed your outrage. And are you claiming you don't post from biased sites?

You quoted from talkingpointsmemo.com, but still quoted it wrong. Still, is that an unbiased site? I looked at a lot of their articles, and it looks slanted to the left to me. Not that they screwed up the article you posted, you got it wrong. So does only Viking quote from "politically biased" sites? You've never quoted from a politically biased site?

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I really could care less whether or not you care for the tone of my posts. I do back up my posts with documented facts, and also check the background on any articles that I use, rather than just reposting articles that I have not even read. That some here find my viewpoints objectionable, too bad. At least I can back up posts, unlike most here.

Sorry to go off topic, but you brought up how you back your posts with documented facts...

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

And after you posted it, it was pointed out you were wrong about the "$1 billion per year". No problem, we all make mistakes. But then you posted it again.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

And you still never corrected yourself.

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12881



Back to topic...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Anytime I see an article written by a lawyer working for a suspect organization that is well known for its links to conservative causes (their previous expertise was in rebutting studies that showed links between tobacco smoke and cancer), I will put in terms of political bias. Had the OP originally linked to the study instead of the political opinion article, then your complaint might have justification, but the Taylor article was not scientific, but was politically biased.

Yes, the OP was from a biased article. But again, he posted the actual paper well before you expressed your outrage. And are you claiming you don't post from biased sites?

You quoted from talkingpointsmemo.com, but still quoted it wrong. Still, is that an unbiased site? I looked at a lot of their articles, and it looks slanted to the left to me. Not that they screwed up the article you posted, you got it wrong. So does only Viking quote from "politically biased" sites? You've never quoted from a politically biased site?

Of course I am biased in my beliefs and politics, as is everyone. Of course I post from politically biased sites, but when I do so, I go back to the source materials so that I am not regurgitating an opinion, but base my opinion on the underlying facts. I have not claimed that Viking posts only from politically biased sites, but that he did so in this thread. Sorry for not being on the site 24/7, but I was posting on the original topic of the thread at the time when I first read it. I did not realize that it was forbidden to continue posting on the topic of the thread, particularly when you look at the topic of the thread. While you and Rockdoc are sermonizing on the propriety of posting in the Courthouse, I stand behind my criticism of the article that was the basis of this thread, particularly when I was the first to do so, and that my criticism is also supported by ScienceChic and Nevermind.

If my post in the other thread was incorrect, then I stand corrected and am not afraid to do so. I have not gone back to that thread lately so am unaware that someone provided a correct rebuttal.

As to my criticism of Viking, not only has he repeatedly posted lies, he has changed my post and quoted it against me in another thread. That is absolutely unethical, and as such, his posts are simply not credible and should be challenged.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I really could care less whether or not you care for the tone of my posts. I do back up my posts with documented facts, and also check the background on any articles that I use, rather than just reposting articles that I have not even read. That some here find my viewpoints objectionable, too bad. At least I can back up posts, unlike most here.

Sorry to go off topic, but you brought up how you back your posts with documented facts...

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

And after you posted it, it was pointed out you were wrong about the "$1 billion per year". No problem, we all make mistakes. But then you posted it again.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

And you still never corrected yourself.

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12881



Back to topic...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Anytime I see an article written by a lawyer working for a suspect organization that is well known for its links to conservative causes (their previous expertise was in rebutting studies that showed links between tobacco smoke and cancer), I will put in terms of political bias. Had the OP originally linked to the study instead of the political opinion article, then your complaint might have justification, but the Taylor article was not scientific, but was politically biased.

Yes, the OP was from a biased article. But again, he posted the actual paper well before you expressed your outrage. And are you claiming you don't post from biased sites?

You quoted from talkingpointsmemo.com, but still quoted it wrong. Still, is that an unbiased site? I looked at a lot of their articles, and it looks slanted to the left to me. Not that they screwed up the article you posted, you got it wrong. So does only Viking quote from "politically biased" sites? You've never quoted from a politically biased site?

Of course I am biased in my beliefs and politics, as is everyone. Of course I post from politically biased sites, but when I do so, I go back to the source materials so that I am not regurgitating an opinion, but base my opinion on the underlying facts. I have not claimed that Viking posts only from politically biased sites, but that he did so in this thread. Sorry for not being on the site 24/7, but I was posting on the original topic of the thread at the time when I first read it. I did not realize that it was forbidden to continue posting on the topic of the thread, particularly when you look at the topic of the thread. While you and Rockdoc are sermonizing on the propriety of posting in the Courthouse, I stand behind my criticism of the article that was the basis of this thread, particularly when I was the first to do so, and that my criticism is also supported by ScienceChic and Nevermind.

If my post in the other thread was incorrect, then I stand corrected and am not afraid to do so. I have not gone back to that thread lately so am unaware that someone provided a correct rebuttal.

As to my criticism of Viking, not only has he repeatedly posted lies, he has changed my post and quoted it against me in another thread. That is absolutely unethical, and as such, his posts are simply not credible and should be challenged.

You are SO easy! You amuse me..... Dance, puppet, Dance! rofllol

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I really could care less whether or not you care for the tone of my posts. I do back up my posts with documented facts, and also check the background on any articles that I use, rather than just reposting articles that I have not even read. That some here find my viewpoints objectionable, too bad. At least I can back up posts, unlike most here.

Sorry to go off topic, but you brought up how you back your posts with documented facts...

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

And after you posted it, it was pointed out you were wrong about the "$1 billion per year". No problem, we all make mistakes. But then you posted it again.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

And you still never corrected yourself.

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12881

I stand behind my earlier posts (since you introduced it into this thread):

" And its impact on the deficit is even less -- a paltry $1 billion."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php