New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Finally! Definitive proof the the climate alarmists are wrong and have been for years.!

Please, read the rest of the article. In the meantime, I am actually gloating because this just proves that I was right all along--the climate models upon which all the alarmists based their findings and upon which the politicians were wanting to enact long-term legislation were fundamentally flawed. When you begin with a junk premise you will get junk results every time.

This should be the last word on the subject, allowing us to stick a fork in it because it is done. Remember....
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.c...unterpoint.jpg

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Never heard of this website before now but the obvious disdain for "alarmists" in the article triggered my own internal alarm, prompting me to have a quick mosey 'round for signs of nuetraility and dignified journalism. Instead, it turned up the usual right-wing talking points and opinion :-/. Then I saw a clicky poll on why Obama is wrong, lol. Even the healthcare section has only articles that (you guessed it) oppose the already-passed healthcare bill and speak of "taking our country back".

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

From Wiki, hmm...

The Heartland Institute is a libertarian[2][3][4] American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and advised by a 15 member board of directors, which meets quarterly. As of 2008, it has a full-time staff of 30, including editors and senior fellows.[2] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

According to its brochures, the Heartland Institute receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget.[20] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.[21]

MediaTransparency reported that the Heartland Institute received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[22]

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[23] Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[14] By 2008, ExxonMobil had stopped funding to Heartland.[dubious – discuss] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[23]

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from the tobacco company Philip Morris.[15]

The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[6]

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family which founded Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[24] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[24] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[24]

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Promising news (thats doesn't address rising ocean temperatures and other pollution said the sad, alarmed polar bear.)

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

The co-author of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer also sez...


Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I guess I'm willing to believe the atomosphere sheds excess heat off into space. It's in a science journal. I do have questions not addressed in the article and skepitcal of early interpretations. Climate change cannot been disproven anymore than anything already happening could be, however the variable of atmoshpheric temperature may now evolve.

Being magically saved has an alarming appeal to it. I'll take it although we have real alarming pollution problems to face. Those won't go away if the the polar ice comes back the next the few years either.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Some folks go looking for the answers they want to find, whether those answers are correct or false.

I believe many of those same things about the designs of creation like myself, the Earth and it's climate systems. Strange and alarming to me is how the word Delicate is not used. And Beautiful. Amongt other alarming omissions.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Myself I don't know one way or another but clearly the author of the study and the author of the article both have identical agendas which to my mind makes what they have written suspect and far from proof positive there Azred.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Some rebutals to his previous works.
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/...degree_warming
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/..._climate_model

More here.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/inde...le=Roy_Spencer
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-easy-lessons/

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Yeah, with Machinehead's research these guys clearly have an agenda, one that is funded by big business such as tobacco, oil and right-wing groups. I could see an issue upon my first visit just by looking around.

Oh, check out the Environment section on the site. It's a riot. They absolutely HATE the concept of Global Warming. Every article somehow seeks to undermine what science has already agreed upon. Then, there's a feature on Dennis Miller (The guy who goes on Fox and laughs @ his own jokes even if you don't). Another article on the tea-party. And yet another slamming the Huffington Post (their arch-nemesis).

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".

Doubtful as Dr. Spencer resigned from NASA in 2001.

Rebuttal.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/...odel-down-roy/

To be fair and balanced here is Dr. Spencers website.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

LOL @ "...put down the the toy model Roy"

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on the misuse of science to further right wing public policy. In the 1980s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.[1] Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, although it continues to be active on defense policy. The George C. Marshall Institute has been described by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denial machine."[2] The institute is named after the World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.[3] The role of GMI in creating public doubt on these matters and swaying public policy was elaborated in the book "Merchants of Doubt", which details the motives of the organization's heads and their interests.[4]

From Wiki
Dr. Roy Spencer is also on the board of directors of this organization...

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Also lol @ an attempt to cast doubt on the dangers of second-hand smoke! Wtf? Those tobacco companies must pay 'em a shitload of money.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Actually NASA collected the data. The part of research which involves analysis and interpretation was not done by NASA.

It's easy to cherry pick and find where people have been wrong. Being wrong is good, it's part of the process of how we develop knowledge. It's doesn't change the fact human impact on the environment can be and is quite alarming, catastrophic, serious, pertinent, deadly...

We know this by the method of common sense. It is as it was. We can go look at it. For example April 2011 National Geographic article notes research into the acidification of the coral reef environments caused by Carbon Dioxide being absorbed in the ocean. It wasn't happening before and it's killing shit now. It's not the end of the world, but it is serious.

I guess pollution probably doesn't matter to people who ascribe to the belief that the Climate is divinely immune to Human endeavors and simply fixes itself. There really is no argument against such magical irrational thinking other than to point out it is. There is danger in such stupidity.

Extremists on one side scoring points against extremists on the other creates nothing but a bunch of useless noise.

Does using NASA data to write an article which can be summed up with a tongue in cheek as "repeatedly mocking a group of environmentalists referred to as alarmists in order to say we told you so and I'm right" help obscure or highlight the middle ground where we find correct analysis?

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I haven't been on in awhile, and I'm glad most people responded with good arguments! I actually got a chance to look at this paper which "debunks" global warming. There are some serious, serious problems with the paper.

There is an irony to the paper. Essentially Spencer is using his model to show how the IPCC's models are quite inaccurate... except the robustness of his model has been a huge issue of contention.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...er-part-2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...er-part-3.html

And yes, we all know how dishonest the Heartland Organization is.

Edit:

Looks like machinehead posted a separately related link which has the same criticisms. The more the merrier when it comes to the scientific community!

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

@Azred
Welcome back Mathsorcerer. Your posts are welcome here, and will get plenty of yakking! I know it can be pretty depressing over at the Oasis, with it having reached Right-wing Entropy. We haven't quite reached Left-wing Entropy here at Ironworks, and if we get the Oasans back, things will heat back up. So bring them over with you.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Yeah we need more political "im right your wrong 'cause I said so"-type debates in the enviromental discussions.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Hello to you, too. What happens at the Oasis stays at the Oasis and had absolutely nothing to do with me...as you well know.

*************
The logical fallacy of False Cause; notice, specifically, the section on post hoc ergo propter hoc.

To claim that temperatures are rising because of human activity cannot be authenticated with any accuracy or definitiveness whatsoever. The true cause of any climate fluctuation is what it has always been--natural cycles. Our weather records go back only 350 years, at best, which is an insigificant amount of time to make any accurate predictions about long-term climate.

Note, also, the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Climate alarmists would have us all believe that because some computer models show a doom-and-gloom scenario and that no one can disprove those models that their conclusions are correct, a classic case of this particular fallacy.

Next comes argumentum ad populum.

Alarmists want us to believe that because a small group of climate scientists, not all of whom agree with themselves, say that something is true then it is true. Besides, which version of the alarmists should we believe? The ones from the late 70s and early 80s who predicted a mini-ice age or the ones from the late 80s and early 90s who predicted the end of all polar ice caps and vast reaches of deserts?

Finally, we have argumentum ad hominem.

Much of the time, the instant anyone doesn't go along with the "human beings are destroying the global climate" philosophy is called a variety of names or they are accused of being in the pay of Big Oil or some sort of rabid dog who wants to fill the world with smoke stacks and strip mines. This is not simply incorrect, it is ridiculous.

People also fail to separate the issues of "climate change" and "environmental quality". I may not believe that humans are altering the climate but I do believe that we need to keep the environment healthy.

I would still like to see anyone try and force countries like India and China to have the restrictions put onto them like alarmists have done in the United States. People are still engaging slash-and-burn agriculture in Brazil, but I don't hear people wailing about it.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

^_-

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Whoah whoah whoah. Take some time to write something well thought out and not written in the heat of passion. It leads to a much more healthy debate.

1. Which reports/papers are you referring to when you say "they got it wrong 20 years ago!"? Specific examples are necessary so we can thoroughly examine them and what they have to say, and indeed figure out whether in fact they got it wrong, or were taken out of context. Don't just respond with "you know... the reports!" What reports? Who said this? It's highly misleading to make a blanket statement like that (which might not even be true).

2. So because we do not have a separate planet, identical to earth (except no humans), climate science isn't a science? That is a really bad argument, one that doesn't make much sense. Your other point, scientists "assume" human impact going in and shape data to match their conclusion, is also by and large not true. You do realize that science is sort of culmulative; it builds off of the work done by other individuals. The whole field of climate change has been building off of research that has been done for the past 160 years or so.

Let's try to start at the beginning. 1827, Fourier. He notices something funky; if the Earth is only warmed by solar radiation (the sun!), the planet (given it's size and distance from the Sun) should be much colder. He devises a bunch of experiments involving paned vases, and suggests the possibility that gases are responsible for maintaining heat on the planet.

Several others are inspired by Fourier's work, most notably Arrhenius. He thinks "could gases explain why the earth can retain its heat? What about specific gases, do they have different heat retaining properties?" He eventually derives numbers for both Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor, and in fact postulates increases in carbon dioxide could lead to a "warming" of the earth. Probably the first guy to make such a bold prediction (and is turning out to be right).

Others continue to take the work of Arrhenius in different directions. Some come up with their own numbers for CO2, H2O, others use the ideas Arrhenius presented to explain the geologic past of the earth.

Most notably, Callendar in the late 1930's tried to estimate the amount of CO2 that had been released into the atmosphere since the industrial era, and used Arrhenius's numbers to calculate the hypothetical increase in temperature. Big leap forward in terms of direction.

At the same time (1900-1950 or so) there was a lot of interest in the role of CO2 diffusing into the oceans. How much diffusion can occur, how much of a sink do the oceans play. A lot of individuals rejected the idea of temperature increases solely because they thought the oceans would uptake most of the carbon.

Now we are in the 50's. Technology and scientific instruementation is getting better. The whole idea of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the role it plays with regards to climate has been around for 50+ years, with lots of rich discussion. It is still something to make a career out of because with every paper, there are more questions, more unknowns. Scientists are able to better replicate what happens to CO2 emissions. With a better understanding of the chemistry, scientists agree the oceans aren't capable of uptaking all the carbon, and it could lead to problems.

So here we are in the 1960's. Going back nearly 130 years ago, when Fourier first postulated the notion of a "greenhouse effect", the snowballing based on that one idea has led scientists to say "CO2 might be a problem." This is based off of the many calculations by different individuals of how well each gas (mainly CO2, H2O) retains heat, and by the understanding of how CO2 diffuses into the oceans.

I'm going to stop here because the story gets much more thorough and longer, but you can see the general idea. One idea blossomed into a whole field to study. Individuals weren't going in with conclusions and trying to match data to them. Instead they noticed discrepancies based on the given level of knowledge and tried to address those discrepancies. This in turn leads to more discrepancies to be addressed which lead to more discrepancies... you get the idea. You will also notice that all of these contributing individuals had to devise experiments to properly answer the question they had. All of these individuals followed the scientific method to a T, complete with controls and such.

I have advocated that fundementally, what makes the scientific method so important/useful is replicability. The ability to take someone else's work, and generate the same or similiar results. All of the advances up to the 60's were also based on this replicability, it had to be otherwise everyone would have achieved vastly different results and conclusions. The fact that to that point, people were reaching similiar values tells you that they are accurately matching reality.

3. You do touch upon a good point, underneath a huge ramble. The policy side of the argument is much more complicated than the science. I shy away from policy decisions and politics because it is so mucked up with different idealogies. I can understand the hostility towards legislation that tries to curb CO2 emissions, because it ultimately becomes a question of "economic growth vs. the environment". Most people do not want to hear "we're going to weaken our economy deliberately."

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

False. False false false false. There is an overwhelming consensus with regards to climate change, especially amongst scientists.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

"...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes"

Also, in regards to the claims of an Ice-Age in the 1970's? That was an extreme minority belief published by a few individuals, and the majority of the scientific body back then agreed in a warming trend.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Well that's what the first post was like. Normally I wouldn't have gone to such lengths to rebut it but I didn't care for the holier then thou attitude. :D

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

It's pretty basic that analyzing weather is little helpful in understanding climate and that Climate records go way, way, way, way back.

Azred your analysis of fallacy one uses a modified version of fallacy two. That the true cause of climate change is by natural cycles, regardless of what human put into the enviroment has not been proven false so you say it is true. However it has not been proven true anymore than it has not been proven false.

The whole simple reason we oughta research the issue is we dont know, we really do. not. know.

Oh and calling people alarmists over and over again is a modified version of fallacy four using methods of fallacy three. You make it popular to dimiss enviromentalists as crazy alarmists by publishing papers and articles saying as much.

Extremists on both sides really are alot alike.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Here's a link that's worth reading.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

This article does appear to take a fairly comprehensive and balanced look at both sides of the issue.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

LMAO!!!
Elitist - horse's rear end - not much difference. :p :D

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Only kidding on that last one. ;)

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

This article isn't proof, one way or t'other, but may be of interest :1ponder:

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Except they didn't. Every "denier" went into a tizzy with the climate-gate scandal over nothing. If you take anything without it's full context it can be dangerously misconstrued. The only problem with the CRU was it's poor handling of data sharing. I think there were three or four separate investigations that found the CRU had no wrong-doing. Furthermore even if they did "make-up" their data, that is one data set out of literally hundreds.

Again what poor methods? That whole post I made earlier was meant to show you exactly how this field of study came about, based on replicable empirical data. If you actually took the time to read even a handful of the papers published, and read them well, you wouldn't be questioning the methodologies. Labeling all the work done by individuals as "poor" without even seriously looking at it is dishonest.

Except you can infer the climate decently through various observations. Of course we will never actually know, but our knowledge on physics, chemistry, and biology lets us know that the data is good enough. If the data was completely wrong, well then our world would come crashing down because so much technology functioning on the same premises exists today and still functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Just read the wiki primer on it. It's really fascinating stuff.

That's true of any group. There are "science!" zealots, there are religious zealots, etc. I think a vast number of individuals (such as myself) do speak out against statements that are blatantly false. There are extremely weak arguments presented by the majority of the conspiricists out there. When rebutted with evidence that shows they are wrong, and asked for a better response, they simply get blathering that amounts to nothing.

There are valid criticisms to make about climate science. Nearly all "deniers" are just that, deniers who will never budge from their positions. "Skeptics" are a good thing, skepticisim in science is crucial. Skeptics consider the information given, and give constructive feedback. Skeptics can be reasoned with, and ultimately swayed one way or another. But most skeptics are you know, usually scientists who know what they are talking about. Unlike nearly all deniers.

I promise you, you cannot. Give me 10 published papers that you have actually read through and in the paper they explicitly say "global warming does not exist." Papers by different authors, and not the same person publishing the same thing year after year. Also if it so common to find such papers, exclude the one published by the Heartland Institute, which was so blatantly wrong and politically biased it should be a crime. If you can that, we'll start from there.

I admit I skimmed through the article, I might re-look at it more thoroughly later. I think the main point to keep in mind however is that media coverage =! scientific majority. Believe me or look it up yourself, as our understanding of the planet has progressed, the belief in heading towards a cooling spell has consistently been a very minor viewpoint. The whole topic of media portrayal of science deserves its own thread, and is something most of us (and by us I mean those who are in academia) have a lively debate about constantly. If you are interested I have some good reads for you.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I think it was slightly more than nothing and it wasn't just the deniers as you put it.

Referring to requests for climate data from critics, CRU Director Phil Jones wrote in 2005 that “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Labour MP Graham Stringer asked Jones why he refused to comply with requests to share data to which Jones answered:

“Because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.”

Well that's certainly an acceptable reason to not share data. NOT. That's the whole point of peer review - to make your data available to others for systematic scrutiny.

Even the House of Commons in their summary agreed with that:

'However, a culture of withholding information””from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming””appears to have pervaded CRU’s approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable.'

Almost 80,000 scientists from the Royal Insitute of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics who submitted their own reports to Parliament in which they raised serious concerns over Jones’s and the CRU's conduct. Here is the report from the Institute of Physics of February 2010

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc3902.htm

In particular, note these sections:

"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. "

and later:

"There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation."

The Royal Society of Chemistry's report is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc4202.htm


So while the House of Commons might have given him a "get out of jail" free card, the greater scientific community didn't.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Maybe I'm being dense but I think we are saying the same thing. In regards to the tampering and deliberate altering of data, it wasn't demonstrably shown that the CRU actually did that.

The big issue (and maybe I downplayed this with my post) was the really bad handling of data sharing. As the reports seem to say, most individuals weren't happy that the CRU outright refused to share data with anyone. That is a big issue of contention. There were some additional concerns about the statistical rigor of the data, but I think that was something along the lines of using inappropriate analyses. However I don't think actual manipulation of data, as Azred is saying, actually occured.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I can sum up everything I believe about climate science in one question:

If they were so convinced they were right, why'd it change from Global Warming to Global Climate Change?

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Research, my friend.

Global Warming refers specifically to temperatures rising. Global Climate Change refers to temperature increases AND everything that greenhouse gases affect. It is more general, and as a result is used more often to encompass the many facets of the issue. But both terms are still in use.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Give specific examples of "articles and studies." Actual things we can discuss, not just some wave of your hand that is supposed to support whatever you are saying. I think you have gross misunderstanding of the entire process. If you have indeed read papers and articles and came to that conclusion, let us both come to that conclusion; I'm willing to keep an open mind about such things. But my suspicion is that you aren't understanding the proper context and have misunderstood various aspects.

Also I don't think it is hubris to say we are capable of altering the climate on a global scale. Human's have already altered a significant number of systems on this planet already. We've significantly altered the lithosphere, biosphere, arguably the hydrosphere. Humans have completely altered the nitrogen cycle around the world, we're accelerating the extinction of species to historic levels. We've dramatically altered the natural landscapes all over the world, and a lot of natural ecosystem processes have completely changed due to humans.

When we inhabit a large chunk of the habitable land on this planet, and people think we aren't capable of altering large scale processes, that is a bad argument. We have already, and climate, which is dependant on so many variables, can also be affected (and data is pointing in the direction that we are doing so).

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

It is also a catch-all to say, "See, we were right." no matter what happens. I lost my website, so I can't link the photos of snow in April I had posted before. The thing is, despite climate scientist's claims, these kinds of fluctuations have been happening since I can remember. I can remember working in shorts and a t-shirt in January, and needing a coat in May, all in Kansas, and all before all the alarmist science that runs rampant where climate is concerned.

What ever happened to the "worst year for hurricanes ever" that we were supposed to have due to "climate change"? I don't recall there being an abnormally large number of hurricanes since Katrina. Did I miss something? We haven't had an abnormal number of tornadoes here, despite claims that we would. However, climate scientists can point at the tornadoes we have had and say "See, we were right.", despite the fact that there have always been tornadoes in KS. I was in at least one hurricane when I lived in Florida, in the 60's.

They have generalized their science enough that any severe storm that comes up can support their claims, and frankly, that's not science. What I find ironic is that one can bash the source of the article in the OP as having an agenda, all the while ignoring the agendas of science that supports the belief that mankind is the sole cause of climate change. Who pays those scientists? People like Al Gore? How much money has he made being a doomsayer?

The truth is somewhere in the middle of what the extremist on either side would have us believe. We can't help but affect our world, but I sincerely doubt that measuring the length of time it takes a person to blink comparatively is really a good standard to measure climate change against. Afterall, at one time in the not too distant past, the place I live now was an ocean floor. As far as we know, there weren't any people driving around in gas guzzler cars that cause the icecaps to melt, so it must have occured naturally. Let's not forget that at another point in geological history, the ice cap extended to at least as far south as I live, and according to a special I watched on the Discovery or Science Channel, at one time the whole planet was a ball of ice. There weren't any people around to do that either.

Conservation is a good thing. Trying to terrify the masses into doing it with poor science is something else entirely.