“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Science Throws More Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Fantasies

Inside the Astrotech Payload Processing Facility on Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) spacecraft (Source: NASA)

Once more we learn that the “science” of anthropogenic global warming is really just more of the guesswork that so often passes itself off as “science” these days.

A new study by Dr. Roy Spencer, a leading scientist with the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, found that much more heat is being bled off into space by our atmosphere than was previously thought, and that this bleed-off begins much earlier in the warming process than thought.  The report indicates a big difference between what the climate models predict and what the satellite data shows.

(Who’s been talking about fudged computer models?)

From a press release from the University of Alabama:

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

It should come as no surprise either that we also recently learned Charles Monnett with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) (he of the “polar bears are drowning” hysteria) is being investigated for “integrity issues.”

ClimateGate taught us all about the “integrity” of these socialist scheisters involved with the anthropogenic global warming hoax, didn’t it?

We the ignorant, unwashed masses are expected to believe that people of “science” are filled to the brim with integrity and objectivity, that they would never falsify, slant or submit to an agenda any of their research.  Yet even many of these scientists will admit that the field of science is not early as altruistic as we are led to believe. In the end, scientists and other professionals are just like the rest of us: flawed human beings with integrity issues and personal agendas.

It’s no wonder the real science keeps coming in which shows the climate of our planet has been naturally going up and down for thousands of years in greater extremes than we see today. But natural climate change provides no basis for Marxists to use to try to separate people from their freedom and their property, does it?  It must be caused by man’s evil capitalistic activity in order to come up with a justification to force us to buy inefficient light bulbs, inefficient electric cars, pay through the nose for electricity, submit to environmental inspections and intrusions of all types, and lighten our wallets.

We have some idiots even in the Republican Party who fall for this nonsense, but most Americans began waking up to this scam a long time ago. Now we just need to clean all these scam artists out of our government and make sure no new ones get in.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


20 Responses to “Science Throws More Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Fantasies”

  1. “We the ignorant, unwashed masses are expected to believe that people of
    “science” are filled to the brim with integrity and objectivity, that
    they would never falsify, slant or submit to an agenda any of their
    research.”

    Bingo. Does anyone really think the power of the word “science” would not be abused? It’s been happening for a long time.

  2. “We the ignorant, unwashed masses are expected to believe that people of
    “science” are filled to the brim with integrity and objectivity, that
    they would never falsify, slant or submit to an agenda any of their
    research.”

    Bingo. Does anyone really think the power of the word “science” would not be abused? It’s been happening for a long time.

  3. Oh, how I wish you were right; I’d like nothing better than to know that the planet wasn’t warming. But the Spencer paper, much as it’s ballyhooed by “skeptics” as the end of global warming theory, has already been thoroughly ripped to shreds. I mean, have you read what real climate scientists are saying about the paper?

    –“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

    –“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

    –NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email:  “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”

    –Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate:  “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”

    And these aren’t empty words; they have dug deeply into the paper and found it seriously flawed. Which explains a couple of things, including why Spencer–a man who earns a fantastic tertiary income asd an author and speaker for the Big Energy-funded Heartland Institute, and who feels that the very non-scientific “Intelligent Design” should be mandatorily taught in public schools–chose to publish in a non-listed journal in the first place.

    No, this is nowhere near the “end” of GW theory. The planet is warming apace, and all the Spencer-level papers in the world won’t slow that warming one little bit.

  4. I don’t think anyone believed this would be the end of that nutty theory. Anyone with a dash of common sense knows (a) the Marxists who are peddling this nonsense aren’t going to give up easy–they never do, and (b) there are still plenty of ignorant souls who will worship anything said by a “scientist,” even if the last scientist (like Spencer) just poked a big hole in the hoax.

    Yes, these other “scientists” have proven Dr. Spencer is wrong merely with the articulation of their words. After all, they are the ones who care about our fragile planet. Spencer took the wrong “fudged” model. He should have used “the other one” the one that “he should have used.”

    Meanwhile, morons like yourself should take the time to read some of the information available at the multiple links in this article. The evidence that any warming which may be occurring is natural and cyclic is overwhelming–that is, unless you’re a Marxist in need of an excuse to rob someone of their freedom and property, or hopelessly slavish to the religion of “science.”

  5. I no longer believe the deniers are sincere.
    Spencer should be fired for incompetence.

    Meanwhile nearly a million children in the horn of africa will starve due to drought.

  6. Drought that comes and goes over the centuries. Pull your head out of whatever dark place you have chosen to embed it and use the brain God gave you. Please.

    More children in Africa die because of the political corruption of Marxists and other despots like those pushing this hoax than ever die of natural causes. Look it up…if you dare.

  7. Like I said… you do not honestly dispute the evidence of Climate change… you see a Marxist conspiracy
    Blinded by fear.

  8. Like I said, you still have your head buried so deep in a dark place that it will likely never come out.

    NEWSFLASH: Climate has been changing up and down for thousands of years.

    NEWSFLASH: The evil capitalist systems and products that you love to loathe even as you use them every day weren’t around for 99% of that history for you to blame–in other words, the climate change had to be natural. But now, because a few Marxists use some fudged computer models to ignore every other piece of science available and claim “Oh, but now it’s man-caused.” we’re supposed to believe that crap?

    Spare me. It’s no wonder the number of people who believe this nonsense has dropped to about a third or less. If someone sits around and really thinks about it for five minutes, it quickly becomes apparent what an overflowing load of hogwash it is.

    Keep pretending if you’d like. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy the fruits of modern life while you wallow in worship of an economic and political system that FAILS EVERY TIME IT’S TRIED.

  9. More climate denial.  There are too many climate scientists who would welcome this theory if in any way it could be proven as feasible. Surprised that ThermalMag even posted this diatribe.

  10. No one is denying climate. One need only walk outside to experience climate.

    No one is even denying climate change. Mountains of evidence show that climate change has been going on for thousands of year.

    In fact, science shows climate change has been going on for thousands of years in even greater extremes than seen today…long before there were SUVs, airplanes, power plants, and capitalism in general to blame it on.

    But while that was natural, we’re supposed to believe fudged computer models and hysterical socialists that today’s climate change is man-made.

    Sure. Go pull my other leg after you play with your unicorns and fairies. The science will remain the same, though: climate change is natural and cyclic throughout history.

  11. “Sustainable development,” “Smart growth,” and “Green” are communist catch terms developed by the United Nations. They are political tool agendas to eliminate private property rights and to control the people.

    Henry Lamb’s latest piece “America at the Abyss” sums it up quite nicely:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327629

  12. Flaming Blob Ellis and his terrorist familiars are mentioned in both the Koran and Bible -

    “The Event … [56.75] But nay! I swear by the falling of stars” and “The Jinn … [72.8] And that we sought to reach heaven, but we found it filled with strong guards and flaming stars” (The Koran; quod.lib.umich.edu).   “Genesis 37:9 … “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Bible; biblegateway.com). 

  13. You have me confused with Muslim extremists and with Satan I am neither, and am on the opposite side from them.

  14. Sadly Jim Petit simply regurgitates the spin from RC – that bastion of truth and fair play!! ;o)

    Meanwhile the really rather silly utterences of “The Team” are dealt with as follows:-

    “LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.

    Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.
    For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:

    “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

    Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.

    Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.

    Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:

    “I cannot believe it got published”

    Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”

    Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually no data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.

    I am quite frankly getting tired of the climate ‘alarmists’ demanding that we ’skeptics’ be held a higher standard than they are held to. They claim our results don’t prove their models are wrong in their predictions of strong future warming, yet fail to mention they have no good, independent evidence their models are right.

    For example….

    …while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.

    Well, they can’t have it both ways.

    If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in the paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?

    That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.

    I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.”

    …………………………………………

    “Creative” is not the word I would use – I would say they need some morals and a significant Honesty transplant and a refersal of their integrity bi-pass.

  15. “the very non-scientific ‘Intelligent Design’” — “Intelligent Design” is not a good thing to mention in a critical manner if you’re attempting to deny that a particular popular “science” is driven by bias and agenda rather than by honest research, because the popular “scientific” reaction to it is a classic example of exactly that.

    ID is not an attempt by non-scientists to sneak “religious dogma” into science. It is an honest reaction of scientists (most not even “religious” at all) to an origins hypothesis (evolutionism) being treated as firm, unquestionable fact in direct defiance of real evidence. And, in case you weren’t paying attention (which you apparently weren’t), it has not be shown to be “non-scientific” by anyone, in any kind of honest debate or examination of evidence. Rather, it has been censored and stifled by any unfair means necessary.

    Pardon me, but your bias is showing.

  16. We’re getting into territory too big to be explored here, but the statements I’ve made about ID are not false or unsupported. Seriously, have you even *heard* of “Expelled”? That’s just one example of how the whole ID story I refer to — started mostly by non-creationists, responded to with censorship, etc. – has unfolded right under everyone’s noses. If you can’t yourself name a few secular scientists in the ID camp, you’re only succeeding in displaying ignorance, willful or otherwise. It’s not like they’re all obscure.

    “I am biased toward scientific truth, not unrealistic fantasies. I’m biased towards evolution.” Which is it? You can’t be for truth and against fantasies, and also for evolutionism. And, yes, it is an -ism. If you acknowledge that life changes in certain observable ways over time, that’s great; you’re in agreement with ID-ers and creationists on that one. But as soon as you credit that change with creating brand new things, particularly with the origins of life itself, you have crossed over into the fantasy-land of evoltionISM, where the refusal to acknowledge an Intelligent Designer trumps all other considerations — especially the scientific method.

  17. BTW, it’s amusing to hear someone compare evolutionism to “the Round Earth Theory.” Evolutionism is the geocentrism of our day.

  18. Thanks for clearing the matter up for us, Doug.  Petit attempts to malign Dr. Spencer and his work by associating him with ID researchers.  Actually, there is much in common with the two controversies, particulary on the Left:

    AGW and evolutionists both claim absolute authority on their respective theory, even though actual unbiased scientific research offers them little support. 

    Both groups use “appeal to authority” as their principle defense, as if truth can be discovered by consensus. 

    Both groups are quick to point out any financial interests an opponent my have, while absolutely ignoring their dependence on Big Education, Big Government, Big Environment and even Big Business. 

    Both groups assume that their opponents are stupid, or at least ignorant.  They cannot bring themselves to believe that we look at the same facts and interpret them differently, but we are not stupid or uneducated.  Mockery and ridicule are hardly persuasive arguments from a supposed scientist.

    By controlling education and the editorial boards of scientific journals they can prevent articles that go against the favored orthodoxy from being published, then they can dirisively point out that there are few ID or anti-climate change articles published in the peer-reviewed literature.

    All this, however, does not change the truth, which will win out in the end…and I think sooner rather than later.

  19. Thanks for clearing the matter up for us, Doug.  Petit attempts to malign Dr. Spencer and his work by associating him with ID researchers.  Actually, there is much in common with the two controversies, particulary on the Left:

    AGW and evolutionists both claim absolute authority on their respective theory, even though actual unbiased scientific research offers them little support. 

    Both groups use “appeal to authority” as their principle defense, as if truth can be discovered by consensus. 

    Both groups are quick to point out any financial interests an opponent my have, while absolutely ignoring their dependence on Big Education, Big Government, Big Environment and even Big Business. 

    Both groups assume that their opponents are stupid, or at least ignorant.  They cannot bring themselves to believe that we look at the same facts and interpret them differently, but we are not stupid or uneducated.  Mockery and ridicule are hardly persuasive arguments from a supposed scientist.

    By controlling education and the editorial boards of scientific journals they can prevent articles that go against the favored orthodoxy from being published, then they can dirisively point out that there are few ID or anti-climate change articles published in the peer-reviewed literature.

    All this, however, does not change the truth, which will win out in the end…and I think sooner rather than later.

  20. Thanks for clearing the matter up for us, Doug.  Petit attempts to malign Dr. Spencer and his work by associating him with ID researchers.  Actually, there is much in common with the two controversies, particulary on the Left:

    AGW and evolutionists both claim absolute authority on their respective theory, even though actual unbiased scientific research offers them little support. 

    Both groups use “appeal to authority” as their principle defense, as if truth can be discovered by consensus. 

    Both groups are quick to point out any financial interests an opponent my have, while absolutely ignoring their dependence on Big Education, Big Government, Big Environment and even Big Business. 

    Both groups assume that their opponents are stupid, or at least ignorant.  They cannot bring themselves to believe that we look at the same facts and interpret them differently, but we are not stupid or uneducated.  Mockery and ridicule are hardly persuasive arguments from a supposed scientist.

    By controlling education and the editorial boards of scientific journals they can prevent articles that go against the favored orthodoxy from being published, then they can dirisively point out that there are few ID or anti-climate change articles published in the peer-reviewed literature.

    All this, however, does not change the truth, which will win out in the end…and I think sooner rather than later.