Globe Not Warming Says NASA

Submitted by: 5cats 5 years ago in Science
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

AGW predictions not supported by facts. NASA finds Earth able to cool itself just fine.
There are 78 comments:
Male 2,850
@TDND

"Musuko please tell me that was not a serious question/ statement...."

It wasn`t. It was mocking sarcasm.
0
Reply
Male 45
Wow that article was amazingly disingenuous. I especially like the links to climate skeptic sites masquerading as legitimate sources.
0
Reply
Male 45
Musuko please tell me that was not a serious question/ statement....
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The Earth is is fact warming up but not because of the Human beings at all, its because the Earths core is getting hotter. This is a natural process that happens in every single planet of the universe. The Earth is right now expanding like a balloon, this causes the increasing of Earthquakes, specially around the ring of fire.[/quote]

I`d just like to point out that this isn`t true. Just in case anyone reads it and assumes that the confident tone means that it`s a statement of fact.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Gotta love how alarmists ignore all scientific evidence that doesn`t fit their theory, Yet use other dubious science and admittedly manipulated data to maintain their scaremongering.[/quote]

Gotta love how the true believers lie so obviously about the evidence.

At least, I would laugh if I didn`t realise that it`s effective for them to lie because people rarely check.

Look at this thread, for example. It`s a lie. As simple as that. All that is necessary to confirm that it`s a lie is to look at the article from NASA, which is completely different to the false claims made about it in this thread. The link to the NASA article was posted by Baalthazaq in the first reply and can easily be found by searching by anyone who missed the link.

But the lying is successful because few people will give even a minute to fact checking.
0
Reply
Male 5,617
Cats, Jak, I think those people are usually politicians,
not scientists so, those that don`t have an agenda can only
go on what they are told.

As for scientists, I can understand a person trying
to lower pollution levels to make life better. Noble.
I can even understand a guy just trying to have a pay check.
But I don`t get climatologists going against the physicists`
and Farmer`s Almanac models that have been spot on
even predicting temps going down since July of 2006.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@QualityJay

"In USA CARBON is now pollution... CARBON! This is what every creature and plant is made of, what every person and animal breaths out. Give me a break."

The vast majority of your body is made of water.

So why do we drown in water?

You can`t explain that.
0
Reply
Male 303
carmium, I agree.
0
Reply
Male 303
Is this a surprise, remember the 2009 email scandal: "... the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals." I personally went to school and studied climatology, global warming while happening is a natural unavoidable circumstance. In USA CARBON is now pollution... CARBON! This is what every creature and plant is made of, what every person and animal breaths out. Give me a break. A great way to tax you on your car, electricity, how many animals you own, breath.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
Facts: pollution is bad, don`t know if it`s going to be warmer or colder but too much pollution is not good for your health.
That`s a fact 5Cats and commun sense.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
The Earth is is fact warming up but not because of the Human beings at all, its because the Earths core is getting hotter. This is a natural process that happens in every single planet of the universe. The Earth is right now expanding like a balloon, this causes the increasing of Earthquakes, specially around the ring of fire.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
I have an idea, let`s use conservative tactics to answer this apparent publication:
*ahem*
THIS STUDY IS FAKE THEIR DATA IS MANIPULATED BY A CONSERVATIVE "SCIENTIST`S" BIAS HE`S JUST DOING IT SO NASA GETS ITS FUNDING BACK SO HE CAN CONTINUE DOING HIS BAD SCIENCE I DON`T BELIEVE THINGS THAT CONTRADICT MY POINT OF VIEW IT`S EASIER TO CALL IT FAKE RAWRRAWRRAWR!
0
Reply
Male 5,617
Dear Humans,
For the last few hundred million years,
the planet has been getting colder.
Local data may show the planet getting warmer.
Less localized data shows that happens in cycles
and the planet is generally becoming colder.

We know you`d like to feel significant but,
there are forces larger than you at work.
You are simply not large enough to affect the
entire planet at once.

Signed,
The Aging/Shrinking Sun, Earth`s Imperfect Orbit and
the other stellar objects acting on it.
0
Reply
Male 37,774
Look at all the kool-aid drinkers trying to ignore the FACTS:

Your crazy models are fake!
Polar bears drowning are fake!
Data was manipulated, twisted and ignored all without any `scientific` justification in order to get the desired result!

Yet governments around the globe are spending billions on this junk science which actually worsens the problem. True but sad.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
I feel like I just read the same paragraph 6 times.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"What I said is true the ice ten years ago was thinner than it was last year."

That isn`t a mark against global warming, CrakrJak. The process is not simple, and it is not without fluctuation.

The fact that you seem to think it IS simple and without fluctiation says a lot about how your mind works, and makes us think you`re the kind of dipstick who points at the snow outside and screams that global warming doesn`t exist.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
"Gotta love how alarmists ignore all scientific evidence that doesn`t fit their theory, Yet use other dubious science and admittedly manipulated data to maintain their scaremongering. "

Look at little conservative creature, found something he likes, now copies.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
5cats, you are incredibly predictable.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Using the phrase "alarmist computer models" that many times kind of detracts from the objectivity and credibility of your piece.
0
Reply
Male 155
*yawn* this is clearly an article with an agenda. i do not trust articles written with clearly accusatory language from either apex of the pendulum. this article is not science, it is an interpretation of science. science does not boast or accuse, it looks at what and why. when people start throwing terms around like `denier` or `scaremonger`, the science is gone and all that is left is the spin. anyone relying on facts is not arguing, they are simply looking at facts. anyone disagreeing on facts; whatever those facts are (i sure as hell don`t know) is not worth arguing with.

as for my stance: i don`t have one. research is ongoing.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gotta love how alarmists ignore all scientific evidence that doesn`t fit their theory, Yet use other dubious science and admittedly manipulated data to maintain their scaremongering.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Madest: Apparently my proof image was taken down.

Was it too big or does a global warming mod not like it ?

Either way, I`m going to link to it here

Notice that red is thin ice and purple is deep ice, What I said is true the ice ten years ago was thinner than it was last year.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"You must`ve skipped this part:
"A complicating factor in that prediction is the influence of climate change, says Karoly. "Even when CFCs are removed, ozone levels will be different in the future than they were in the 1960s, because of changes in temperature in the stratosphere."

Which says to me, someone with a chemical engineering degree, that people with absolutely no science background should realize that they have no hope in understanding something as complicated as climate changes and causality over the millenia.

Is it really such a big burden to stop wasting and polluting so damn much just in case they are right? After all, you pretend to be religious just in case there`s a hell, don`t you? It should be second nature to hedge your bets.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
The author of this article needs to go back to journalism school. he said the same thing in four different paragraphs. want an abriged version?: {NASA satellites have found that there is much more heat escaping from earth than what those "alarmist`s" computer`s had predicted.} which means... of course everything they`ve ever said and all the studies are a scam!! they are lying to you so they can... do what exactly? what evil agenda do the evil environmentalists have hiding just under the global warming conspiracy!? /sarc
0
Reply
Male 934
Four basic types of people on this issue:

Alarmist: Man is causing global warming. Every effect of global warming will be bad, and if we don`t start working immediately, we`ll destroy the planet. We must make drastic changes now, even if it costs a lot of time and money.

Denier: Anthropogenic Global Warming cannot exist, and it`s a conspiracy to funnel money to scientists and for hippy socialists to crush industry.

Reasonable proponent: Global warming is perhaps going on, and we should probably be making strides towards reducing greenhouse emissions at a reasonable and manageable rate.

Reasonable Skeptic: AGW may or may not be source of rising temperature. There are many complex factors to consider such as increased reflectivity from increased cloud creating a negative feedback cycle, solar intensity and the pitch of the axis of the Earth relative to the sun among other things. We should carry on doing research without making premature claims.
0
Reply
Male 186
Ha ha libtards suck.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
You know what I`ll come back later.

I work a graveyard shift so I`m gonna come back after I`ve done some research (after my job of course). I certainly don`t agree with Crakr on a LOT of issues, on the flip side there I certainly disagree with many liberals on economic issues. Global warming just happens to be one of them.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Angillion

Watch episode 6 season 6 of Penn & Teller`s: Bullsh*t!

, and tell what you think.

Oh who deleted my comments?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Having checked back, I see Baalthazaq has already done what I was going to do next - go to the source and link to it.

So now I can see that the propagandist wrote this article is distorting the report to the point where their claims about the report are false (I`d call that lying) and that both the title and subtitle of this thread are outright lies.

Did you write those lies, 5Cats, or did a mod write them?

And yes, they are lies. Specifically, lies as a false appeal to authority. The two statements about NASA are provably and clearly wrong. NASA`s name is being attached to false statements in order to falsely give those statements perceived authority.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
The first thing I did was check the source. It`s an opinion piece from a free market conservative group, which means that it exists solely for the purpose of promoting free market conservatism and has nothing to do with reality. It contains no information about anything. The report it refers to might or might not be anything like how it portrays it. You may as well listen to the wind for information.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Ooh ooh ooh!

Another fun fact!

You know that big Ozone people were worried about!

It`s actually SHRINKING!

HURRAAAYYYY!!!![/quote]

So...you`re arguing that humans can and do have a very large effect on the environment on a very large scale? That`s what you`re giving an example of - changes in human activity caused the hole and changes in human activity are causing the hole to shrink.
0
Reply
Male 144
Why are we still debating about this? its like debating with a 6 year old about the existence of father Christmas. Lets just get on with fixing the problem and leave these people with their fairy tail, hoping they grow up, or just die out!
0
Reply
Male 591
submitted by: 5Cats? Wow, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Or not.
0
Reply
Male 73
Come on I-A-B. The first rule when considering the quality of a newspaper source is to check to see if it`s an opinion piece or a press release. And look, this is a press release. That means that Forbes hasn`t checked any of the statements in the piece for accuracy, and thus we have to rely entirely on the words of a single scientist employed by a conservative think tank. Thus, the "article" has zero credibility until verified by independent, peer-reviewed or at least editorial board reviewed sources.
0
Reply
Male 528
(small story) in the uk, the news said a couple of years back, (in short) it`s not been this hot since 1980 something and the roads havent melted since 19-whatever so, global warming.. myth.. me got no degrees but that`s my view. trololol
0
Reply
Male 5,811
PROGRAM CONSERVATIVE
IMPLICIT NONE
CHARACTER(LEN=30) :: CONSERVATIVE
CONSERVATIVE = "(DO WHATEVER FOX NEWS TELLS ME)"
READ(*,CONSERVATIVE)
WRITE(*,CONSERVATIVE)
END PROGRAM CONSERVATIVE
0
Reply
Male 143
We just had a heat wave where it was unseasonably warm. However, it did not break the record that was established in 1930, which was before global warming was thought to have started.

There are 365 days a year to break the high record, and since records were started less than 200 years ago, there will be a lot of record breaking days.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@lauriloo

You must`ve skipped this part:
[quote]A complicating factor in that prediction is the influence of climate change, says Karoly. "Even when CFCs are removed, ozone levels will be different in the future than they were in the 1960s, because of changes in temperature in the stratosphere."[/quote]
0
Reply
Female 734
I don`t know if the climate is changing but I do notice that the words unseasonable and "above average" are popping up every night during the weather forecast. If things are no longer average then something must have changed, right?
0
Reply
Female 83
All right, all right. You make a valid point. But you have to admit that it has *sometimes* been the standard, whether scientific or political, to present those theories as fact.

I feel like I`m trolling now. I`m going to resign from this thread.
0
Reply
Male 493
I`m having alarmist a hard time alarmist reading the alarmist article because alarmist the author keeps alarmist throwing the alarmist word "alarmist" around every alarmist time he alarmist mentions anything alarmist that disagrees alarmist with his view alarmist.

Seriously, when did "alarmist" become the new "socialist" for targeting the hatred of the crazies?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Cajun247:Okay THIS is actually a better link"

The ironic thing about you posting this link is that it says in the first line "Antarctic ozone layer bouncing back after the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons."

So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is that when humans change their behavior, climate issues get fixed. THANK YOU for the validation of climate change efforts.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
People, please consider the source of any article you read before believing it. It`s easy to pick and choose parts of a study to make it fit an agenda that has nothing to do with the final conclusions of the science. The author of this article is a writer for an organization called "The Heartland Institute" that`s basically for tea partiers. Besides their ongoing efforts to dispute climate change, they also believe smoking isn`t as bad as scientists make it out to be. They will say anything to make government smaller and taxes lower, whether it`s good for the world or not. They have an agenda and it`s not to save the world from its inhabitants.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]jamie76: The poles aren`t melting, Arctic see ice is doing just fine, In fact it`s deeper now than it was ten years ago when the alarmists started crying like chicken little.[/quote]
-------------
That`s either willful ignorance (akin to most republican mindsets) or you`re just plain stupid. Do some research outside of what Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh tells you to think. There are actual photographs showing the decline in the ice over time. People in Greenland are enjoying the newfound weather and Polar bears are on the endangered list. I won`t give you any links to proof because you know how to use the internet. Stop being retarded. It makes you seem retarded!
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Easiersaid:

A fact is a truth, it is never invalidated.

Let me put it specific to this argument.
Facts: Earth heating, amount it is heating by is measurable.
New fact: Stratospheric Aerosols have a cooling effect.

Nobody (except 5 and Crak) goes: Aerosols have a cooling effect? Holy poo, then it WASN`T 42 degrees yesterday, it was 39, and I didn`t get a sunburn!

Hence my explanation below of the boiling pot. The facts of global warming do not change based on this new data. The new facts are incorporated into the old facts, and new *theories* are created.

Those theories (there will be X% less ice) change (huh.. actually it will be Y%) but the facts (It`s going down) do not.
0
Reply
Female 685
Duh! NASA would say that wouldn`t they? They are one of the worst polluters. I won`t make stupid joke about rocket science but sheeeet..... are your brains PERMANENTLY switched off? (And yeah crkrjck you`re a douche for posting huge picture, only my Dad does that)
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Crakr: Your img is here. You can use Tinypic.com to shrink it. Don`t stretch the page.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Male 10,855
Ooh ooh ooh!

Another fun fact!

You know that big Ozone people were worried about!

It`s actually SHRINKING!

HURRAAAYYYY!!!!
0
Reply
Male 881
Once again, you are full of crap.
0
Reply
Male 1,461
@easiersaid, you seem to be mixing up "facts" and "theories." A new theory may invalidate an old one, but a fact remains a fact. Data is always data, whether it be new data or old data. Old data may be combined to create an old theory that ties all of the old data together. Old and new data may then be combined to create a new theory that ties all of the old data and new data together.

The unfortunate thing about the news cycle is that unfortunately people keep mixing fact and theory up. Fact: my car was damaged with a smudge of red paint. Fact: a damaged red car was seen driving away from my car. Theory: my car was hit by that red car. New Fact: the shade of red on my car does not match the shade of red on the red car, but it does match a shade of red on a red motorcycle that was also driving away. New Theory: my car was hit by the red motorcycle. The new fact does not invalidate the old fact, but the new theory does invalidate the old theory.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
After watching a specific episode of Penn and Teller: Bullsh*t! I`m now on the sidelines on this issue.
0
Reply
Male 38,480
0
Reply
Male 1,216
Cracked covered this. It works because we do our job at saving the environment good. We definitely shouldn`t stop using and developing clean energy.
0
Reply
Female 83
Baalthazaq: This is not really an issue I have much to say about as I have a degree in Art, not Science. But your statement that "new facts do not invalidate old facts" just made me laugh.

For someone who attempts to support their opinions with science and statistics, this declaration can only be injurious to your argument. New research is always relevant and, more often than not, disproves old theories. You seem to forget that it was once believed that the world was flat and bloodletting helped cure infection. New facts don`t invalidate old facts? You have got to be joking.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
"Actually nowhere in the new NASA data does it say "30% slower", Sounds like you made that number up off the top of your head."

Actually, I misrepresented NASA`s offset of contribution as offset in actual temperature. I gave 5Cats too much credit. Corrected before you spoke.

Lets simplify it, not that it matters, you`re not an idiot, you`re just devoting too much of that limited mental resource to mental gymnastics in Republican talking point favor.

We have a pot of boiling water. It is boiling. NASA has said, "I bet all that steam leaving the pot has a cooling effect".

5 Cats has misrepresented this as "Boiling water not hot" "Leaving pot on the hob not a cause for heat" "Boiling is science fiction".
0
Reply
Male 881
Visual proof that CrakrJak and 5Cats are full of crap:
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/134729main_sea%20ice%20average_NASA%20WebV_1.mpg
0
Reply
Male 1,293
As I say every time to the true believers in the New Church of Environmentlism, where is the evidence?

There is none. The models (on which the whole panic is based) are consistently shown to be wrong - that is what this paper does, but it has been shown many, many times before. That is the fact that justifies the title 5Cats chose.

So Rhythmdvl, Baalthazag, ohplease, bliznik et al. - where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that human activity will have a devastating influence on the climate unless we stop burning fossil fuels?

Where is the evidence to justify the destruction of the world`s economy and thereby ensure that millions of black people remain in grinding poverty or die?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
They need more funding
0
Reply
Male 17,512
jamie76: The poles aren`t melting, Arctic see ice is doing just fine, In fact it`s deeper now than it was ten years ago when the alarmists started crying like chicken little.
0
Reply
Male 1,461
@Baalthazaq--spot on. Global Warming is still occurring, just not as fast as the most extreme models predict.
0
Reply
Male 1,929
Dear IAB

Please make sure your post titles reflect the content of the post. This avoids confusion.

Cheers
0
Reply
Male 2,345
this article was written by a right winger with an agenda. NASA is not debating that global warming is occuring. they are saying that existing models are not accurately reflecting how quickly it is happening. NASA was the first agency years ago to determine that the greenhouse effect is REAL and determined that Venus went that route after being much like earth for a length of time.

The bottom line is the artic poles are melting...there is no refuting that and if the planet was NOT HEATING UP then why would they be melting?

ice only melts when it is heated and for no other reason.

0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baalthazaq: You obviously didn`t even read the new data, because it clearly shows that CO2 has little if any impact on cloud formation, and that much more long wave radiation (aka heat) is escaping into space than predicted.
0
Reply
Male 881
Does 5Cats get a kickback from Exxon or something?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baalthazaq: Actually nowhere in the new NASA data does it say "30% slower", Sounds like you made that number up off the top of your head.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Incase you missed that:

You say: Globe not warming. (I heard it from NASA).

NASA says: Global Warming has a slowing mechanism that is unaccounted for.

Note: They`re NOT even saying Global warming is occurring slower than predicted. It is occurring as predicted, with Carbon Dioxide having a *larger* impact than predicted because we haven`t taken stratospheric aerosols into account, which were always having an under appreciated offset.
0
Reply
Male 868
Sure it is still warming but compared to the extreme changes in climate since the beginning of time our pitiful impact on the earth`s temperature is insignificant. If you hadn`t noticed, mother nature pretty much does what she wants.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
NASA knows as much about climate science as your local TV weatherman.
0
Reply
Male 911
I like reading bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 911
Hmm...
0
Reply
Male 6,737
5Cats or Crakr, 5Cats or Crakr...


5Cats!
0
Reply
Male 60
An article about an agenda-driven right wing `scientist` (yes, scare quotes are necessary when referring to someone who also pushes intelligent design) and uses such loaded phrases as "alarmist computer models" sure upends all of climate science!

What is it with the right`s detachment from reality and penchant for fapping to propaganda?
0
Reply
Male 567
Key word in that article "Alarmist" climate models. Which leads to Dr. Roy Spencer, which leads to "Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species." credibility blown. Nice try 5cats.
0
Reply
Male 3,462
Hmmph. I`ve been saying this for a while now.

But it won`t quiet the believers.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Next up: NASA says "drat you 5 Cats, that`s not what we`re saying".

The temperature is not going up? Bullpoo, it is.
AGW predictions not supported by facts? Bullpoo, new facts do not invalidate old facts.
Earth able to cool itself just fine? Bullpoo.

All of this obtained by spending 30 seconds, not bothering to read your link, and going directly to the Article on NASA`s Website rather than Yahoo.

Quote: The average radiative forcing between 2000 and 2010 by stratospheric aerosols has cooled the Earth down at 0.1 watts per meter squared, while the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the same decade has warmed the Earth at 0.3 watts per meter squared.
0
Reply
Male 37,774
Link: Globe Not Warming Says NASA [Rate Link] - AGW predictions not supported by facts. NASA finds Earth able to cool itself just fine.
0
Reply