Nasa says no global warming

[rasorinc]

global warming and climate change

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just read this on the news on line--was unable to cut and paste it.
Nasa study refutes UN and other data on their study data and models as a ten + year Nasa study shows heat released by CO-2 is ejected into space
and is not held in the atmosphere as models all represent. Headline was "Nasa blows a big hole in the global warming theories"

Anyone finding more about this please post it here. Thanks, Stan Further it said that "NASA says we will not experience global warming now or in the future".........................................WOW and another WOW... What say HOYT? What say Boston?

[GTS225]

Let's try this; http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ing.html?cat=9

and this; http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/28/n...ming-alarmism/

Roger

[hoytedow]

Good for you rasorinc. Beat back the alarmists' dogma.

[rasorinc]

Thank you for posting the 2 links above. I want to read all and everything about this. This should be headlines and should be all over the news..................

[bntii]

Don't hold your breath- viral "news" all over the net with no citation of the study or how it relates to the state of the science.

[rasorinc]

If this holds true a GIANT FRAUD has been perpetuated on THE WORLD'S PEOPLES. Nasa's reputation is on the line and I do not think they would want to hurt their reputation. Other than the fake man on the moon thing. ha

[rasorinc]

Would, please, someone find the actual Nasa published study and post it? I would be very thankful to be able to read it. Thanks, Stan

[hoytedow]

How about this one from GISS? http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_06/

[bntii]

The study is out of Huntsville- that should tell you all you need to know...

Here you go:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61161272/O...-Energy-Balanc

[Stumble]

First off this wasn't a study released by NASA it was published in a poorly repected journal by a scientist that is not particularly credible due to his questionable methodology. In addition he is one of the few outspoken deniers of climate change (though this alone doesn't bring his results into question). However the fact that his study misrepresents, and distorts realities, and the climate model he used was modified by him to show discrepancies raises serious issues about the credibility of his work.

At the end of the day this boils down to all of us having to make arguments from authority because to my knowledge none of us are climate scientists, and the overwhelming stance of the scientific community is that global warming is happening, anthropomorphic causes are driving it, and co2 emissions are a major culprit. Denying those facts puts you at odds with the vast majority of scientists who work in the field.

[hoytedow]

You mean he(Spencer) is not held credible because he disagrees with you.
Huntsville was the new home of Werner Von Braun, so what's your beef with Huntsville. Many smart people live there.
Do you have the meteorological credentials to stand up to those held by Dr. Roy Spencer?
And New Orleans is better? Huntsville would have used their buses to evacuate during Katrina rather than turn them into monuments to inundated rust.

[Deering]

I'm with you, Hoyt. No scientific proof has been presented, just a bunch of theories.

And here's another one...'cigarettes cause cancer'...HA! All a bunch of malarkey to gain control over free people by claiming they have scientific proof. Here's an article you'll get: http://www.yoursdaily.com/health/no_..._causes_cancer

[Stumble]

No Spencer isn't credible because his methodology is flawed. His process is flawed, and his paper was published in a low rent poorly respected journal.

I am not sure what anyone's city has to do with this conversation. But if Huntsville Has hurricane flooding problem then I am pretty sure global warming will be beyond doubt at that point.

Hmm let's see some other highly doubtful scientific theories...

Evolution
Heliocentric solar system
The earth is round
Radioactive decay modeling and dating

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Stumble

No Spencer isn't credible because his methodology is flawed. His process is flawed, and his paper was published in a low rent poorly respected journal.

---I am not sure what anyone's city has to do with this conversation.---

Not the city- UAH is where Spencer has his chop shop...

[bntii]

While we are mulling this over....

The whole mess never left me quite so impressed as I am with this single graph:



It tells to my eye a remarkable story.
And succinctly foils many arguments.

If anyone knows where it was first published, I would be indebted..