Imagine that (Global Warming)

[Lunkerdog]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

I wonder if they can get a refund on their "carbon credits"?

[LBR]

...real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

Again, this is why I'm so skeptical about certain types of "science". Think nobody really knew they were feeding garbage to the super computers, and nobody knew that they would get garbage data in return?

I wish there was some kind of law, similar to "looser pays", that required all those so-called "scientists" to repay every dime they have wasted on this tripe. I bet if such a law were enacted, it would change a lot of "findings", from climate change to the t.o.e.

Chad

[Alsatian]

I posted a thread about this a couple of days ago. This is really a big deal. Either the study is crap . . . or this means big trouble for the anthropogenic (human caused) global warming (AGW) issue.

My feeling all along about AGW is that is has lacked the properties of scientific activity, scientific discipline because it has been singularly missing quantitative information. Numbers. Science without numbers . . . is not science. There is nothing wrong with modeling complex systems that you do not fully understand. The problem is portraying this activity as "settled science." Isn't that what Al Gore said "The Science on this is settled." Question! Au contraire mon ami! It ain't settled if half the equation of thermodynamic equilibrium is missing or is unsupported by solid data -- that is the equation that characterizes heat loss of the system.

This is extremely fundamental. I bet a fourth grader can understand it. If you add heat to a jar, it heats up . . . and continues to heat up so long as you add heat to it. At some point, the jar will start radiating heat, and the input heat will balance the radiated heat. To predict the steady state temperature of the system -- what Al Gore and his collegues are so ardent to claim they know, understand, and is settled science -- you need to have a good radiated heat equation. This sort of equation is not done with a theoretical equation, it is done with an equation that fits good data. Evidently they haven't had data of any quality before.

The science is not settled. It is a monumental idiocy to set public policy based on something like this that is not settled science. There are many, many indicators that climate science is NOT a mature science. Not any disparagement of this science . . . it is just not in a position yet to make reliable predictions or pronouncements.

[Kybuckhunter]

I've been one of those deniers for some time. I've been called all kind of names by the left wingers because I will not follow Al Gore blindly. The left will not admit they could be wrong now because they have too much invested and would feel too stupid.

[Alsatian]

There have been other indications that this was motivated by something less than dispassionate scientific investigation and sincere well wishes for the planet. Why is the only solution that can be contemplated for this supposed problem one which involves taking money out of the pockets of people? That smells pretty suspicious. In WW-II there was concern there wouldn't be enough materials for the war effort -- food, rubber, etc. They didn't manage this scarce resource, this communal resource by taxing it higher, the managed it be imposing rationing. Rather than taxing the sh1t out of us, why not simply ration CO2 emissions? What about other emissions? No, it smelled pretty badly all the way through. It also had the smack of imposing further constraints upon The People by unelected bureaucrats.

Of course, it is not correct for me to speak in the past tense. This is still very much the status quo. Today, the political bodies accept unthinkingly AGW and are ready to burden us with economy killing measures for this silly issue. I can only hope that the accumulation of damage points moves us to the point where the old saw "the science is settled on this" is discredited and we don't jump off the cliff of rolling back CO2 emissions to 1992 or some such brain dead standard.