Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong - National Post
Newsbot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:03 am
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=31592" target="_blank">Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong - National Post</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/20-environmental" target="_blank">Environmental</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=stemmer" target="_blank">stemmer</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-03-25 06:48:29
<strong>Canadian</strong>
ridenrain @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:03 am
Soon an angry mob of eco-Nazis, carrying farmers tools and torches will attack the Argo tracking centers and burn them to the ground to silence the heretics and unbelievers.
Shortly after, the eco-spin jockeys will attempt to prove that the Argo project was paid off by big oil.
mtbr @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:04 am
This stuff all comes to light because Toronto's is freezing it's ass off 
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:17 am
$1:
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
That's not a "denier", that's one of those vaunted scientists from NASA saying this.
So I wonder when the usual suspects will post some BS here about how this guy is totally wrong or that his data are incorrect or how this doesn't disprove their unfounded belief.
YOUR_DEAD @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:45 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
$1:
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
That's not a "denier", that's one of those vaunted scientists from NASA saying this.
So I wonder when the usual suspects will post some BS here about how this guy is totally wrong or that his data are incorrect or how this doesn't disprove their unfounded belief.
There is not enough evidence to make a conclusion either way, but by the sounds of it, you are also one of those people who's mind couldn't be changed no matter what evidence was provided.
sasquatch2 @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:52 am
There has been an attempted smear that he is insane....
BTW hasn't anyone yet to realize that the computer models just reflect what they are programmed to....like the "Industrial Light and Magic" images in Star Wars the movie?
They are artifacts created with a computer rather than a brush, oils and canvas.
commanderkai @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:00 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
There has been an attempted smear that he is insane....
We are ALLL insane for not believing the Goracle and all of his environmental doomsday scenarios! Flee!
People are foolish sometimes, and no matter what happens we can never be right cause we're working with BIG OOILLLLL. By the way....where's my check?
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:31 am
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
$1:
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
That's not a "denier", that's one of those vaunted scientists from NASA saying this.
So I wonder when the usual suspects will post some BS here about how this guy is totally wrong or that his data are incorrect or how this doesn't disprove their unfounded belief.
There is not enough evidence to make a conclusion either way
Right on cue. Thanks.
Freakinoldguy @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:26 pm
$1:Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Naw, it can't be, Al Gore wouldn't lie to push his own agenda, would he?????????????????
YOUR_DEAD @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:34 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
$1:
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Naw, it can't be, Al Gore wouldn't lie to push his own agenda, would he?????????????????
Ya, and he would be the first politician to do so too!
Bacardi4206 @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:35 pm
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
$1:
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
That's not a "denier", that's one of those vaunted scientists from NASA saying this.
So I wonder when the usual suspects will post some BS here about how this guy is totally wrong or that his data are incorrect or how this doesn't disprove their unfounded belief.
There is not enough evidence to make a conclusion either way, but by the sounds of it, you are also one of those people who's mind couldn't be changed no matter what evidence was provided.
Check Mate!
ridenrain @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:44 pm
Yup. beter throw him in jail like Comrade Suzuki wanted.
N_Fiddledog @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:04 pm
This last bit from the article is important.
$1:
The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
The data coming back from the Argos buoys is part of a double-whammy challenging the computer models at this particular instant in time.
Data is also coming back from the Aqua satellite, which may turn out to be an even more damning piece of evidence than Argos.
I just have to go by memory, because it doesn't appear the final studies are out yet, but Roy Spencer says Aqua is proving there may be more negative feedback from clouds than previously thought.
You see CO2 in itself doesn't radiate enough heat to warm the atmosphere significantly. In order to suggest catastrophic warming from greenhouse gases the modelers had to postulate radical positive feedbacks creating more warming than what CO2 itself could offer. If that turns out not to be the case, and there's clear scientific proof of the fact the models are junk.
The models are the only real support for the whole CO2 forced global warming sales pitch.
bootlegga @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:56 pm
Hallelujah!
Well of course climate change must NOT be happening, after all, the oceans are 100% of the Earth's biomass right? Who gives a damn about air temperature, land conditions and everything else right?
Climate change is occurring whether all the deniers here want to believe it or not. The only real question is whether or not mankind is part of the problem or part of the solution. If we can't prevent it, then we all better hang on, because the next century will prove to be very interesting.
YOUR_DEAD @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:04 pm
Its amazing how science/scientists are suddenly relevant when they support the view that global warming isn't happening, otherwise they are biased or have an agenda. Pretty convenient if you ask me.