Originally Posted by mushroomboy
Are we STILL doing this?
Originally Posted by EvanPitts
NASA has it right on. The Global Warming cargo cult only base their beliefs on a few, short term records that are no more than 150 years old, and none of them can get their mind around the massive influence the sun inflicts upon us. We have had hot, we have had cold, but nothing has shown that we have created Global Warming.
The main reason that I have a dislike for the Global Warming crowd is that they distract the policy makers from their other tasks, like working on reducing pollution of all forms, increasing energy efficiency, and of rationalizing our various systems so that we can all have a better life. And they did so effectively, since the Global Warming crowd are the first to jump on a plane for the Caribbean the moment the temperature falls one degree, and the same crowd that drive their giant SUV to their Global Warming protests, rather than taking a bus or something...
All we know is that the Arctic has been loosing ice coverage, while ice coverage in Antarctica has been increasing - which looks like nothing more than an age old cycle repeating itself, seeing that we have no actual records from observers about this phenomenon except for the short span of maybe the last century.
If you'd read the actual published study (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
) you would know this:
1. This is NOT a NASA study. While it was done using NASA equipment, it was headed and maintained by Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and current professor at the Univeristy of Alabama and fellow at the Heartland institute and Interfaith Stewardship Alliance.
2. He pretty much concludes that he can't conclude anything due to problems with sensor lag, fluctuation in anomalous data (even averaged) of conditions between the land and ocean atmosphere and surface, and that the sun's new radiation entering Earth's atmosphere is the main contributor to a changing atmosphere in the short term (10 years, the extent of the study, an already well known fact).
This study has very little significance as part of the whole in the hundreds of thousands of individual climate studies done over the past 10 years. This is ONE study not verified by any other studies to date; it seems to me more of the author of the news article going to town with the study in line with his political views rather than a human-induced climate change debunking scientific theory.
Also, you may want to take a gander at this, an article that was published in the midst of Dr. Spencer's research. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/sc...erland&emc=rss
Confirmation bias seems to be running rampant with this one.