Say What!!!

Just what is one to think???

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/30/wind-farms-cause-global-warming/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Global-Warming-Journal-Happer/2012/03/27/id/433983

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/polar-bear-population-no-change/

Perhaps I would give it some credit if a) if fit with other observations and b) was actually published in an appropriate peer reviewed journal (something of this scope would belong in the journal Nature, Science, or something by AGU, not a semi-scientific journal like Remote Sensing.

Also note the author's affiliation on the bottom of the Yahoo article: "James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute"

The meaning of the term 'global' seems to escape the Forbes author. From what he said (I don't have access the the actual scientific article, I let my Nature subscription lapse) the wind farms cause local warming. Trees do the same (but for slightly different reasons. That said, I think wind power is somewhat overrated.

Bryant wrote:
Also note the author's affiliation on the bottom of the Yahoo article: "James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute"

Well, I sort of guessed that the guy wasn't exactly unbiased and impartial in the subject by the fact that he used the terms "computer models/climate models" 14 times and used the words "alarmist" in all but 2 of them :-p

On the wind turbine thing, is nothing new or alarming in finding that out. In fact I was doing a vineyard tour last year and the guide pointed out that in the fields they had big wind turbines which ran every night during the growing season to keep the air near the ground moving and warm so that the vines wouldn't get damaged by frost - and they've been doing that for decades....

Miles1 wrote:

Bryant wrote:
Also note the author's affiliation on the bottom of the Yahoo article: "James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute"

Well, I sort of guessed that the guy wasn't exactly unbiased and impartial in the subject by the fact that he used the terms "computer models/climate models" 14 times and used the words "alarmist" in all but 2 of them :-p

On the wind turbine thing, is nothing new or alarming in finding that out. In fact I was doing a vineyard tour last year and the guide pointed out that in the fields they had big wind turbines which ran every night during the growing season to keep the air near the ground moving and warm so that the vines wouldn't get damaged by frost - and they've been doing that for decades....

They also do that for the orange trees around Fresno during winter.

Marconius wrote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2010/12/17/nasa-lowers-estimate-of-carbon-dioxide-warming-effect/

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/06/05/treeline-studies-show-warmer-past/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

If we're ganna play this game, lets make it peer-review or bust. Something I've notices is that most 'science' that goes to the media before passing peer review tends to stink (think Kracken fossil or arsenic based bacteria).

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/

If we're ganna play this game, lets make it peer-review or bust. Something I've notices is that most 'science' that goes to the media before passing peer review tends to stink (think Kracken fossil or arsenic based bacteria).

Well, its well known that papers and studies that do not "tow-the-line" on this subject matter, get the "feet dragging" treatment when it comes to review and release(The peer reviewed study of polar bear population increases took over 4 years to release. All the while Mr. Gore had plenty of time to convince us otherwise.).

Does the non-scientific investigatory report about the fudging of numbers (and the proof to show it) need to be peer reviewed as well???

Besides that, I thought NASA was pretty reliable and had fairly competent scientists.

How is someone, such as me, who has not been exposed to the world of peer review, to know if a peer reviewed study is reputable. Apparently the one I posted yesterday was not quite up to your standards. The ignorance of the rest of us, could allow you to pick and choose what is and isn't acceptable without us ever being the wiser.

Well, I don't know if ppl are fudging the data, or how many ppl are fudging the data, the way I look at it is that there's a buttload of evidence to say that the earth is warming either way and it's not really the kind of thing you can turn around later and say "gee, guess we should have done something about it" - we don't have another planet earth for a do-over. So the long-term risk of doing nothing is a bit high for fudging around with it. And whether global warming is being caused by man-made activities or not, we're still putting a shitload of pollution out there either way which is screwing things up in other ways, and we're still relying on resources that we know are going to run out eventually. So, makes sense to do something while the pain of doing it is relatively miminmal compared to what it will be further down the line.

Or, to put it another way:



And a lot of the arguments against taking action are economic ones, that it would cost the economy too much to do anything about it, especially now in times of recession etc. Those are also the arguments the companies with vested interests used over leaded petrol and CFCs, that they'd go out of business etc, and a lot of those companies that were leading that particular charge are now doing better than they would have been doing before.

Miles1 wrote:

And a lot of the arguments against taking action are economic ones, that it would cost the economy too much to do anything about it, especially now in times of recession etc. Those are also the arguments the companies with vested interests used over leaded petrol and CFCs, that they'd go out of business etc, and a lot of those companies that were leading that particular charge are now doing better than they would have been doing before.

But Miles, this makes no sense what-so-ever. We have the technology to take greenhouse gases out of the air. Air Liquide has been doing it for decades and they make a good profit from it and pay good wages to its 43,000+ employees. Think of the boost to the economy if we start building more facilities that do what Air Liquide does (they bottle and sell the gases to welding supply, hospitals, pharma plants and chemical plants). Think of the jobs created not only by building, but maintaining these facilities.

Hell we even know how to slap the stuff back together as gasoline so that in effect would make gas a renewable resource......and since we are taking the greenhouse gases out of the air at the same time......gasoline production would then be......gasp.....green.

Bottom line is that nobody is discussing this because it really isn't about fixing a perceived "danger". It is about political agenda. If we aren't gonna fix a perceived "danger", then it must not be a danger after all.

Besides, I tend to believe NASA. They are now beginning to join those of us who are skeptical of the hype.

What should worry you is that there are no solutions to the problem being talked about.......only restrictions. You realize why??? Think about it and get back to me.