NASA-Global Warming Wrong

[Jimbeaux]

I hope this tips the scale and finally stops these MMGW idiots.
Mr. bdi of Weatherbell.com has some evidence as well that media has mostly ignored.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-g...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/27361...

[mybrainhurts]

Covered here...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Jimbeaux]

mybrainhurts said:

Covered here...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Damn! It came up again today when Mr. bdi of Weatherbell was laying it all out in layman's fashion for the "normal" people. His description, using certain laws of physics, shows how MMGW is pure BS.

[Tsippy]

mybrainhurts said:

Covered here...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

But it never hurts to expose the lies and manipulation to a wider audience

[RemainAllHoof]

Tsippy said:

But it never hurts to expose the lies and manipulation to a wider audience

Yes, I got bored reading that thread back in 1954.

The problem with NASA posting such stuff is that they might end up in trouble and have funding cut. Oh...

[Facefirst]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011...

Also, more about the journal:

'For Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292), authors are asked to pay a fee of 500 CHF (Swiss Francs) per processed paper'

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/apc/

[ChiChoAndy]

Facefirst said:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011...

Also, more about the journal:

'For Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292), authors are asked to pay a fee of 500 CHF (Swiss Francs) per processed paper'

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/apc/

So they are talking about models with no merit... Authors getting what they want from it? Interesting.

[Facefirst]

ChiChoAndy said:

So they are talking about models with no merit... Authors getting what they want from it? Interesting.

Not only that, they are talking about a poorly written paper that spawned headlines not supported by the paper its self.

A true skeptic would read this paper and question the spin being put on it by the media.

[ChiChoAndy]

Facefirst said:

ChiChoAndy said:

So they are talking about models with no merit... Authors getting what they want from it? Interesting.

Not only that, they are talking about a poorly written paper that spawned headlines not supported by the paper its self.

A true skeptic would read this paper and question the spin being put on it by the media.

So not at all like any other aspect of climate science at all then?

[Snoggledog]

So what's the next scare story the BBC can use?

[Facefirst]

ChiChoAndy said:

So not at all like any other aspect of climate science at all then?

Except this paper contains serious (and basic) errors, yet its results have been lapped up by a certain portion of the media and blogosphere uncritically, almost as if they aren't interested in the truth and would rather just press home a political message.

I'm banned from the science thread on here, but does it not bother you that not one of our resident skeptical thinkers has given this paper an honest review, looking at it with the same detail they do papers that go against their view?

[Phil1]

Facefirst said:

Except this paper contains serious (and basic) errors, yet its results have been lapped up by a certain portion of the media and blogosphere uncritically, almost as if they aren't interested in the truth and would rather just press home a political message.

Are you describing Mann's hockeystick?

[ChiChoAndy]

Facefirst said:

Except this paper contains serious (and basic) errors, yet its results have been lapped up by a certain portion of the media and blogosphere uncritically, almost as if they aren't interested in the truth and would rather just press home a political message.

I'm banned from the science thread on here, but does it not bother you that not one of our resident skeptical thinkers has given this paper an honest review, looking at it with the same detail they do papers that go against their view?

It surprises me that people who will so ardently support IPCC models that give results that are contrary to the observations, and yet find this particular model so disgusting. I find that quote funny, more than anything else.

[Facefirst]

Phil1 said:

Are you describing Mann's hockeystick?

No, as with the case of Mann's hockeystick, when the errors were corrected there was no significant change in the outcome. Subsequent work by others yielded very similar result using different techniques.

You can read about it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

I strongly recommend reading point 4.

[ChiChoAndy]

Just out of curiosity, has there been a pro-MMGW paper that you have brought up, and debunked?

[chris watton]

Facefirst said:

No, as with the case of Mann's hockeystick, when the errors were corrected there was no significant change in the outcome. Subsequent work by others yielded very similar result using different techniques.

You can read about it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

I strongly recommend reading point 4.

You know, FF, your views remind me of an old Star Trek episode (not really into Star Trek, but I remember this one..) – where Pickard has been taken prisoner and is interrogated at length by these fascist type aliens, who insist on telling him that the 5 lights he sees aren’t 5 lights, but actually 4. At the end, when he is freed, he commented that, although he knew there were 5 lights, he almost believed that there were 4.

So, when we’re told that the last few winters were the warmest ever, when our own senses (and fuel bills) tell us otherwise, what you state is the same as the fascist aliens, that the winters were, in your strange little world, the hottest ever. Your views would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous.

[Facefirst]

ChiChoAndy said:

Just out of curiosity, has there been a pro-MMGW paper that you have brought up, and debunked?

There are plenty, and I'm more than happy to talk about errors on both sides where I see them. I get what you're driving a though, but if you look back you'll see that I spent time trying to 'debunk' satellite data with Guam and others. This turned out to be a failed endeavor mind, the data stood up to our scrutiny and the problems that were thought to exist turned out not to.

There are many papers that contain errors (probably all of them), but the real question is not 'do they contain errors?' but rather 'are the errors too great for the paper to be useful?'.

[Facefirst]

chris watton said:

You know, FF, your views remind me of an old Star Trek episode (not really into Star Trek, but I remember this one..) – where Pickard has been taken prisoner and is interrogated at length by these fascist type aliens, who insist on telling him that the 5 lights he sees aren’t 5 lights, but actually 4. At the end, when he is freed, he commented that, although he knew there were 5 lights, he almost believed that there were 4.

So, when we’re told that the last few winters were the warmest ever, when our own senses (and fuel bills) tell us otherwise, what you state is the same as the fascist aliens, that the winters were, in your strange little world, the hottest ever. Your views would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous.

Thanks for the ad hom Chris.

[mybrainhurts]

Facefirst said:

chris watton said:

You know, FF, your views remind me of an old Star Trek episode (not really into Star Trek, but I remember this one..) – where Pickard has been taken prisoner and is interrogated at length by these fascist type aliens, who insist on telling him that the 5 lights he sees aren’t 5 lights, but actually 4. At the end, when he is freed, he commented that, although he knew there were 5 lights, he almost believed that there were 4.

So, when we’re told that the last few winters were the warmest ever, when our own senses (and fuel bills) tell us otherwise, what you state is the same as the fascist aliens, that the winters were, in your strange little world, the hottest ever. Your views would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous.

Thanks for the ad hom Chris.

Don't say you don't deserve it. And why does it matter when you don't matter? It's not as though you're expert in the field, by your own admission right at the beginning.

And why do you keep spelling SCEPTIC incorrectly? Are you trying to make some obscure point, or are you simply ignorant?

[BliarOut]

Facefirst said:

ChiChoAndy said:

Just out of curiosity, has there been a pro-MMGW paper that you have brought up, and debunked?

There are plenty, and I'm more than happy to talk about errors on both sides where I see them. I get what you're driving a though, but if you look back you'll see that I spent time trying to 'debunk' satellite data with Guam and others. This turned out to be a failed endeavor mind, the data stood up to our scrutiny and the problems that were thought to exist turned out not to.

There are many papers that contain errors (probably all of them), but the real question is not 'do they contain errors?' but rather 'are the errors too great for the paper to be useful?'.

Care to point to a pro-MMGW paper with errors to back this statement up?