Slashdot Mirror

"So what's the long term plan to store the heavy metals and the byproducts from solar panel production?
Those byproducts don't exist, moron."

Perhaps you should bother to educate yourself before spouting off like a fool.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

https://www.cleanenergywire.or...

https://principia-scientific.o...

https://spectrum.ieee.org/gree...

Guam. You want to buy Guam. That sucker floats and you have to worry about it tipping over if you put too many people on it in one place. But it should also be pretty resistant to sea level rise because of the floating nature of Guam...

...to this single article which focuses on Western Antarctica there are a number of recent scholarly articles, including findings by NASA ( https://principia-scientific.o... ), that show ice growth Eastern Antarctica that offsets the loss in the west for a net gain.

Skew the data by not providing all the facts and you too can go full Chicken Little about anything. *smdh*

The solar panels aren't subsidized. But they're not the primary purpose of the project anyway.

This is a load balancing project, needed because existing wind and solar generation fluctuates so much. The real money here is in the battery storage, which will be charged from the grid and is only needed because of subsidized solar and wind generation generation projects elsewhere.

Thanks for getting to the real facts of the matter. The hype machine will roll on regardless.

The solar panels aren't subsidized. But they're not the primary purpose of the project anyway.

This is a load balancing project, needed because existing wind and solar generation fluctuates so much. The real money here is in the battery storage, which will be charged from the grid and is only needed because of subsidized solar and wind generation generation projects elsewhere.

Fact: Climate models have been wrong for years:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

Fact: The globe has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, by a lot over the last 500,000 years:
http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

By claiming any scientist or study that doesn't agree with you is "industry sponsored" you are engaging in the logical fallacy "damning the source." It is irrelevant what the source is. If there is evidence of fraud in the work, then cite it (you cant). You have to look at the facts as they stand, regardless of the source. I am pretty sure that the only ones who have been found out committing fraud were the climate scientists at NASA.
http://principia-scientific.or...

Saying that it is what the majority of scientists believes is demonstrably false (see the link below) as well as a logical fallacy "appeal to majority logical fallacy."
http://www.naturalnews.com/052...

I expected mighty martian to respond. I guess I didn't read him right, that's too bad.

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I'd like to assure you, I'm not lazy. Clearly you don't know me and that's fine. Look at my comments for about the past 10 years or so. You'll find all kinds of discussions.

Do yourself a favor, hit the link you sent to me and look at the results. You didn't look, did you? This one has a rundown of a bunch of them:
http://climatechangeeducation.... . They even show why the mythbusters demo wasn't done correctly.

I drilled through the first three pages I think. There was one that was close to a scientific method. Even that one still misses the point of the link above. You don't use the right light, don't expect to get results you can use. I did find one very interesting article done at the Lawrence Berkeley lab, here:
http://principia-scientific.or... . They used the correct light and the study was done in the pre-BS era - 1990. If they did it again today I bet they would hook or crook make it work. Their job depends on it now. Always willing to look at their experiment and data, however. Science is about the truth after all.

Once again, let's see something using the scientific method that shows us that this is real. We're betting a great deal of money on it after all. Possibly our lives. Let's get it right. If a politician like Al Gore is trying to convince you that he's trying to save the world, have enough sense to question it.

I know of Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis. There may be some relationship between cosmic rays and clouds but it's far from clear how much of an influence GCRs are. There are plenty of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere even without the influence of GCRs.

Perhaps you might like to look at this, then: http://principia-scientific.or...

t's impossible to understand anthropogenic climate change without also understanding natural variability and the scientists who put together the IPCC WG1 reports are well aware of this.

Of course it is impossible, that is the point!
This analysis makes it clear that the Franework Convention defines 'climate change' as that change which is due to human activity" http://www.mclean.ch/climate/d...

Of course humans have an effect on the climate. Of course nature has an effect on the climate. Which is greater? the IPCC is NOT charged with finding out. "Climate Change" is *defined* as that from human activity *only*, so of course reasonable people like yourself will be convinced that humans need to de-industrialize in accordance with http://green-agenda.com/
I am trying to make you aware that the IPCC is not about science, but about cover for a pre-defined neo-Marxist policy which doesn't actually care about the science. Your problem is that you are unable to fathom the ways that non-scientists work. The scientists are mostly honest (although if you've done research as I have you'll know that once the fight for funding is on even scientists show self-interest and bias), but the bureaucrats writing the summaries and press-releases most certainly are not !

What data? You've just made the bald statement that "The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years." No cites to anything to support that.

Yes I have. You simply dismissed the data I gave. Thus, I will MAKE you look through the links I have already given - to get you out of the bad habit of arguing your position without actually examining the evidence presented. Sorry, but it is for your own damn good. You sound like an intelligent person, but you are having a hard time throwing off the programming you've been subjected to. Unfortunately de-programming you requires some work on your part.

Sure but that doesn't mean that life in its current evolutionary state can easily withstand those conditions. It's probably been 100 million years since CO2 was at 2000 ppm and over 65 million years since it was even above 1000.

Great. But you still need to answer what the 'optimimum' CO2 and mean global temperature should be, right? I mean, surely the IPCC has laid that out exactly for you, right? It has not ! That is my point - they get the world into hysterics (because getting people to react emotionally bypasses their reason) but they never defined what the actual target conditions should be or why. We do get a hint of their true motivation when the leaders of the movement refer to pre-industrial conditions as the reference. Would you like to live in a pre-industrial World? because that is what the eco-loons behind this movement are really aiming for. Have you never thought about that?

Didn't I quantify it somewhat by saying " If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem."?

Why wouldn't it be a problem? surely if the CAGW/AGW hypothesis is correct and human emitted CO2 is the biggest driver of the climate then the World is just as cooked in 2000 years as 200? no? the rate of change makes l

Everything the tax payer paid for is available.

...unless either you or Mann (prolly not both) are lying, which is more than possible given that no one can actually use that data to reproduce the results he originally presented.

But the kicker is that you don't seem to understand that this is just a fishing expedition, to find something, *anything*, to take out of context and shit-coat Mann's career.

You mean like Mann did when he sued Tim Ball, then watched as the case collapsed because he wouldn't, you know, hand over the research documents that would prove Ball was somehow committing libel?

Oh, wait... ;)

It is based on old-school physics that have been discredited. Fourier's conclusions about his friend's experiments turned out to be wrong... the experimental apparatus in fact formed a real greenhouse. But... greenhouse gas theory is not based based on a the kind of heating that occurs in real greenhouses, which is known to be the prevention of convective cooling. Greenhouse gas theory is completely different, having to do with trapping of radiation. Which has been thoroughly discredited. (Just one example of said discrediting.)

Don't try to debate me on the science, guy. I've got you beat. I can keep shooting you down all day.

Sorry. Just linking 'papers' is not shooting down. And the paper linked isn't even worth reading. I have given research papers back to students to rework with less flaws. You just need more data points, repeat your experiment, show that the changes are bigger than the combined errors. He might show something, but that paper isn't thoroughly, it's anecdotal. Also I can't find anything on the researcher itself and the biology cabinet site looks like 'science' is just a hobby and he got his Prof. because he is a teacher. That may be the reason the paper looks a lot like homework and not like a scientific paper.

"This is about science in general, not AGW in particular."

The video clip being discussed was about AGW, and it was the cause of people saying here that politicians are stupid. Claiming otherwise won't get you anywhere.

"But if you want to make it about AGW, the science is not based on surveys, nor is it based on computer models."

I didn't "make it" about anything. The videoclip was about AGW, and OP's post was (largely) about the video clip. And the video clip, in turn, was largely about the survey. You're trying to move the goalposts here.

But aside from that, you're still wrong. The computer models are supposed to be based on the science, not the other way around.

"It is based on old school physics that's been developing over centuries."

It is based on old-school physics that have been discredited. Fourier's conclusions about his friend's experiments turned out to be wrong... the experimental apparatus in fact formed a real greenhouse. But... greenhouse gas theory is not based based on a the kind of heating that occurs in real greenhouses, which is known to be the prevention of convective cooling. Greenhouse gas theory is completely different, having to do with trapping of radiation. Which has been thoroughly discredited. (Just one example of said discrediting.)

Don't try to debate me on the science, guy. I've got you beat. I can keep shooting you down all day.

"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."

No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.

A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.

And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.

The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.

Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.

Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.

And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.

There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.

"I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.

Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post."

Okay. On the outrageously infinitesimal probability that you have argued with me so frequently but missed the hundreds of links I have posted, here are just a few of them. First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.

Then, let's see... there are so many to choose from. I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years... most of which I've linked to here. And more written down from years prior. Hey, here's one. About that "97% consensus". (Note here: this information did not come from Christopher Monckton, but he did write about it. The same points are available in more painstaking detail elsewhere. I linked to this same information from a different source a few days ago. The point being: don't try shooting the messenger. I'll just laugh at you. If you can refute the message, go ahead.)

"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"

Because, you see, according to an actual survey of AMS members, it turns out that their opinion of AGW is actually based more on their "perception of consensus" (rather than science) and their "political ideology" (rather than science). Wow. I would never would have guessed that latter. Just kidding. I most certainly would have. But isn't that what you accused ME of? What a coincidence!

If you don't like reading about it on WUWT, here is a link so you can download the paper directly from the American Meteorological Society's own website.

How about some information regarding the actual CO2-based-warming climate models?

Hmm. How about: how IPCC has deliberately mislead the public.

And more of that: "IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted..."

Yet another reason bogus claims about expensive storms have been bogus...

How 114 out of 117 climate models studied exaggerated warming by a mean of over 100% (pdf). That one is from Nature.

No dispute? Hahahaha.

Wait... this wouldn't be complete (it isn't anyway, not by a long shot) without just a hint of the boatload of evidence that Steve Goddard has been compiling about dishonest temperature information being fed to us by our erstwhile "authorities" on the matter.

Well, hell. I could do this all day. So here's a list of more references you can read for yourself, all peer-reviewed. I'm not going to count them.

And before anybody tries to call bullshit:

HERE is the Arctic ice extent and thickness from a week ago, and

HERE is information about the current Antarctic sea ice.

"I do pay attention to the climate debate but I've seen very little good science coming from the climate contrarian side."

Then you haven't REALLY been paying attention.

Try these on for size, just as an example. Hardly new.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

http://www.principia-scientifi...

If you can successfully rebut Latour, I'd be happy to buy you a drink.

".. there's so much evidence for it and so little against it that it would take something revolutionary to change my mind..."

Spoken like someone who truly does not know what he's talking about. There is LOTS of contrary evidence. You just haven't seen it, so you deny it exists. That's called "denial".

Just for example, see here, where Dr. Roy Spencer explains how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work.

Then see HERE, where this idea is soundly refuted.

I'm not going to claim to you here that the greenhouse effect is disproved, but the fact is that the scientific basis for it is actually pretty thin.

If you want to talk about the science, you have to read and talk about both sides, or you are not being honest.

Look, this really shouldn't devolve into an argument about semantics. Sophistry does often imply intent, and "after the manner of the glass panes in hot-houses" possibly refers to the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and greenhouses both trap heat, not that they use the exactly the same mechanism to do the trapping.

Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.

Are you proposing that the CO2 knows whether it is in a real greenhouse or not?

No, I am proposing that the CO2 would be aproximately the same inside and outside the greenhouse, so its effect would not be noticeable. In the experiment, the greenhouse temperature is compared to the external temperature, right?

Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection. The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount.

That is why we say the experiment on that website has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

The XKCD "trustworthiness scale" is a cartoon joke.

Uh, yes. That parenthetical statement I made that referenced a cartoon joke, was a joke, an attempt at humour on my part. I am sorry it offended you so. If I may ask, why did you chose to link to the PDF document when there are (as you noted) many other HTML documents mirroring the original? Also please note that I did not "ask [you] about credibility". We are discussing these pages on content, only.

In any case, the original source page was up when I googled for it before I posted. As I stated, it had little to no relevence to the article you referenced.

There are two sources provided for the web article's results. You probably meant to link here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

That is a report produced by the person who wrote the web article, linked to from the article. It seems to contain the conclusions listed in the "Results" section of the web article. In it is a very different experiment to the one listed on the website (that doesn't even involve measuring temperatures in a greenhouse at all!)

That report is rife with errors, but that is an entirely separate subject. What matters is that the experiment described in it does not correspond with the website. On the other hand, his other provided source does have an experiment similar to the web article. However, it does not contain the results in the article.

This is (partly) why we say that that page is absurd.

And one more. Apologies for the multiple posts. Re: the argument about "radiative forcing" in atmospheric gases.

Arguments refuting this idea are available HERE and HERE (pdf).

"Well, characterizing AGW using words like you do ("weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated") does show a lack of critical thinking.."

Excuse me? You are claiming that actually researching the evidence on both sides is a "lack of critical thinking"?

Have you done that? (Never mind; it's a rhetorical question.)

The "hotly debated" stuff is in the finer details --- exactly what feedback mechanisms contribute...

No, it isn't. The major debates today are about the very fundamentals of the theory. For example, the thermodynamic basis for the greenhouse model, and whether those models were developed responsibly. Those are just a couple of examples.

"AGW is not "gospel," but portraying it in the opposite side --- as a "weakly supported" hypothesis in contentious debate --- marks you as an ignorant shill."

That's funny. Because I have actually researched these issues from a scientific viewpoint, and you apparently have not. All you did was reinforce my point: ideologues don't care what the facts are. People who disagree are infidels.

First, I am quite good at providing citations and references.

And you go on to provide these two links:

http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/330-ipcc-climate-reports-then-versus-now.html
http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/369-ipcc-sea-level-exaggeration.html

Principia-scientific is a vanity site run by Joseph E Postma, who is not a climate scientist and has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate science. If that's the best you can do then you don't have a case.

First, I am quite good at providing citations and references.

And you go on to provide these two links:

http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/330-ipcc-climate-reports-then-versus-now.html
http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/369-ipcc-sea-level-exaggeration.html

Principia-scientific is a vanity site run by Joseph E Postma, who is not a climate scientist and has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate science. If that's the best you can do then you don't have a case.

Your keep making these accusations without any references, citations... What exactly makes you so sure the experts are wrong?

Three inaccuracies here. First, I am quite good at providing citations and references. (There's one here.). Second, I did not state the experts were "wrong"... I wrote that there is a strong indication that there was something amiss about their science. Two very different things. Third, I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics.

The point I made is very simple: if you have a theory, but the predictions of the theory (OR, as in this case, the basic data upon which the theory is based) keep changing by 50%-100%... then you have a problem with your theory. This is about as basic as concepts in science get.

Example: AR1, 1990: 1 meter rise in oceans expected by 2100. But: "After 23 years, sea-level rise has not increased and is consistent since the last interglacial time period."

Example, AR5: "The computer models predicted widely disparate figures from 140 to 1910 gigatons, making them basically meaningless." That's an error margin of 1300%. Heck... 100% is peanuts in comparison.

Example, AR1 predicted surface temperatures: off by 500% compared to actual observed warming over this period.

It's just not reasonable to keep finding errors of this magnitude, and keep calling it responsible science.

Your keep making these accusations without any references, citations... What exactly makes you so sure the experts are wrong?

Three inaccuracies here. First, I am quite good at providing citations and references. (There's one here.). Second, I did not state the experts were "wrong"... I wrote that there is a strong indication that there was something amiss about their science. Two very different things. Third, I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics.

The point I made is very simple: if you have a theory, but the predictions of the theory (OR, as in this case, the basic data upon which the theory is based) keep changing by 50%-100%... then you have a problem with your theory. This is about as basic as concepts in science get.

Example: AR1, 1990: 1 meter rise in oceans expected by 2100. But: "After 23 years, sea-level rise has not increased and is consistent since the last interglacial time period."

Example, AR5: "The computer models predicted widely disparate figures from 140 to 1910 gigatons, making them basically meaningless." That's an error margin of 1300%. Heck... 100% is peanuts in comparison.

Example, AR1 predicted surface temperatures: off by 500% compared to actual observed warming over this period.

It's just not reasonable to keep finding errors of this magnitude, and keep calling it responsible science.

It was more considerable than being off a few flips. I'll link to the article again. Note that for all four IPCC reports, the averages of their estimates all end up over the actual measurements.

I'm not trying to pull an Ad-Hominem but frankly I don't trust the analysis of a fancy sounding scientific organization I've never heard of, with members I never heard of, who are publishing AIDS denialists.

It's like you presented me with a 300lb fat man and told me he was an elite marathon runner and showed me all these charts, and anecdotes, and finishing times of him being an elite runner. Common sense and experience tells me there's something wrong with the claim, every other fat man who claimed to be a marathoner was actually slow, I know if I look long enough I'll find a picture of him hopping in a Taxi or walking a 10k and claiming it was 42, I simply don't trust the fat man as a source of fast running.

If the analysis in that article is correct it will be replicated in credible sources, if the analysis is flawed it will be confined to the denialist sphere.

The point of evidence is to distinguish between models. As we get more data, it'll help us distinguish between these possibilities.

The models are largely based on the same underlying science, where they vary is in different ways of applying the science. It's not like competing Copernican vs heliocentric models of the solar system, it's more like using algorithm X or Y to simulate phenomena Z, or what statistical model do we want to use to simulate phenomena W.

We've been waiting since the 70's and the evidence continues to get stronger. The longer we wait the more severe the consequences are and the harder it is to change direction. If you wait for absolutely incontrovertible evidence it will almost certainly be too late to stop serious warming. It's possible we've already passed the tipping point and are looking at an unavoidable increase of 2-3 degrees no matter what we do.

Except the evidence isn't growing stronger as a case for near future action. Instead we're seeing growing divergence between the predictions made and the actual climate.

Except it's still getting warmer, the rate is slightly slower but the abnormally high temperatures are getting higher, not lower. Scientists are seeing something that causes them to be more and more certain, I think there's a point at which you have to accept they're not all morons.

It was more considerable than being off a few flips. I'll link to the article again. Note that for all four IPCC reports, the averages of their estimates all end up over the actual measurements.

I'm not trying to pull an Ad-Hominem but frankly I don't trust the analysis of a fancy sounding scientific organization I've never heard of, with members I never heard of, who are publishing AIDS denialists.

It's like you presented me with a 300lb fat man and told me he was an elite marathon runner and showed me all these charts, and anecdotes, and finishing times of him being an elite runner. Common sense and experience tells me there's something wrong with the claim, every other fat man who claimed to be a marathoner was actually slow, I know if I look long enough I'll find a picture of him hopping in a Taxi or walking a 10k and claiming it was 42, I simply don't trust the fat man as a source of fast running.

If the analysis in that article is correct it will be replicated in credible sources, if the analysis is flawed it will be confined to the denialist sphere.

The point of evidence is to distinguish between models. As we get more data, it'll help us distinguish between these possibilities.

The models are largely based on the same underlying science, where they vary is in different ways of applying the science. It's not like competing Copernican vs heliocentric models of the solar system, it's more like using algorithm X or Y to simulate phenomena Z, or what statistical model do we want to use to simulate phenomena W.

We've been waiting since the 70's and the evidence continues to get stronger. The longer we wait the more severe the consequences are and the harder it is to change direction. If you wait for absolutely incontrovertible evidence it will almost certainly be too late to stop serious warming. It's possible we've already passed the tipping point and are looking at an unavoidable increase of 2-3 degrees no matter what we do.

Except the evidence isn't growing stronger as a case for near future action. Instead we're seeing growing divergence between the predictions made and the actual climate.

Except it's still getting warmer, the rate is slightly slower but the abnormally high temperatures are getting higher, not lower. Scientists are seeing something that causes them to be more and more certain, I think there's a point at which you have to accept they're not all morons.

There could be a systemic bias, or it could be a partially chaotic system acting slightly less biased than usual.

The point of evidence is to distinguish between models. As we get more data, it'll help us distinguish between these possibilities.

We've been waiting since the 70's and the evidence continues to get stronger. The longer we wait the more severe the consequences are and the harder it is to change direction. If you wait for absolutely incontrovertible evidence it will almost certainly be too late to stop serious warming. It's possible we've already passed the tipping point and are looking at an unavoidable increase of 2-3 degrees no matter what we do.

Except the evidence isn't growing stronger as a case for near future action. Instead we're seeing growing divergence between the predictions made and the actual climate.

"Isn't Dr Lindzen lead author of Chapter 7 of the recent IPCC report. I thought that document sounds like it only includes one point of view. If you choose your "expert" based on what you want to hear... then sure... the IPCC reports _are_ progressively weaker."

I chose Lindzen as one example. I offered others... did you bother to look at them? Here... I'll repost this one for you.

There are many more. If YOU claim to be "objective", then why haven't YOU seen them before?

"Where are you suggesting these pay checks issue from? What would the UN, say, stand to gain by influencing IPCC research toward alarmism -- or bias in any direction, for that matter? In the other corner, as it were, who is bankrolling the denial camp?"

I didn't write anything about "bankrolling" a "camp". That sound suspiciously like conspiracy theory to me. As for paychecks... they do come from somewhere, yes? I'm not suggesting any kind of big conspiracy, as you seem to be doing. I'm simply saying: AGW is what they're doing, and they are getting paid for it. Is there something about that with which you disagree?

"Also I am pretty sure the latest IPCC report made a point of stating more clearly and unambiguously then ever before that climate change is real and man-made. We discussed it here on /. at the time."

Yes, the report does make a point of saying so, in their executive summary. Which is just proving my point. Because the actual science in the report (pdf) does not justify the claim. If anything, the actual evidence is weaker than before. (That is a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature Climate Change, by the way). 117 climate models were studied. Of those, 114 overstated the actual amount of warming (by, as I stated before, an ever-increasing margin), and the mean divergence between those 114 models and current reality was 100%. In other words, the models, on average, predicted 100% more warming than has actually been observed.

Put that together with the increasing number of new studies that contradict the very foundations of most AGW climate models, and the only reasonable conclusion is that these ever-more-shrill pronouncements are nothing but hot air (pun very definitely intended).

When the overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology say "AGW is real"

And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism.

Regardless of that: I find it interesting that with the release of the IPCC AR5, which has toned down its predictions of things like warming, and weather extremes (in fact they dropped claims of AGW driving extreme storms such as cyclones altogether), and with AGW climate model predictions showing ever-increasing divergence from actual observation, the "sky is falling" cries have become even more shrill.

When the overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology say "AGW is real"

And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism.

Regardless of that: I find it interesting that with the release of the IPCC AR5, which has toned down its predictions of things like warming, and weather extremes (in fact they dropped claims of AGW driving extreme storms such as cyclones altogether), and with AGW climate model predictions showing ever-increasing divergence from actual observation, the "sky is falling" cries have become even more shrill.

It appears some people still haven't read the climate change memo. Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet," write H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."

Sources for this article include: Be sure to read this one... http://principia-scientific.org/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/