Saturday, July 18, 2015

Global Warming in the News

Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming
go to the LINK for info and graph.
"But what Michaels and others say is more problematic is the growing divergence between NOAA’s new temperature data versus satellite data and records from the UK Met Office. NOAA’s data shows significantly more warming than Met Office or satellite records.

“It’s a major problem because outside of the north polar region, the upper troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface,” Michaels said.

“Pretty much every projection made by our climate models for sensible weather is simply not at all trustworthy,” Michaels said."
Perhaps NOAA will need to modify the satellite data too? In today's unfalsifiable AGW "science", nothing that happens is surprising any more.


Anonymous said...

MICHAEL BASTASCH is a liar paid by right wing interests to keep doubt alive, against the 99% of scientists who agree climate change is really made worse by humans It's a shame that anyone would still quote him Truly embarrassing that a few people like him can contribute so negatively to the science of climate change

Stan said...

Your charge is without evidence, and is thus without merit. You make three claims, totaling five errors, all of which are sufficiently egregious, and of course, unsupported, to render your statement merely a crank statement, on the order of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".

1. Unsubstantiated charge of "lying".
2. Unsubstantiated charge of bias due to being "paid by right wing interests".
3. Unsubstantiated use of a statistic.
4. Logic Failure: Appeal to Authority.
5. Logic Failure: Ideological Scientism and the failure to comprehend the nature and limits of "science".

Plus, the term "science" refers to the generation of objective knowledge by empirical experimental, replicable, falsifiable procedures. Climate change claims are not testable; they are not replicable; they are not falsifiable; they are computer simulation programs (so are computer games). The data manipulations by NOAA indicate two things: that the data is not firm, and that manipulations seem acceptable to these government "scientists" when such data forgeries are necessary to prove that the two decade hiatus doesn't exist in order to salvage the holy mantra of AGW.

You make one further error, and that is the presumption that only lies could possibly produce doubt of "scientists" and their "science". The cause of this error is your assertion of religious Scientism, but the error itself is due to not comprehending the nature of real, empirical science. Real science and real objective knowledge of physical phenomena are always contingent in nature. No scientific claim is ever completely without doubt, because future findings and future technology can possibly falsify it.

But your issue goes deeper, doesn't it? Your issue is political; you are Left Wing as is indicated by your hatred of "Right Wing" influence as you see it. Your comment is intended as a purge mechanism, a character attack, on a political enemy. This attack, like all your assertions, is without substantiation and is completely without merit; in fact, it is despicable.

Your comment merely furthers the observation that actual observed data is not necessary in order for True Believers to make unsubstantiated, hyperventilating claims as if they are actual Truth.

It's interesting that you have something which you believe religiously, and without comprehension of the limits of your religious icon's ability to generate actual knowledge. By icon I refer to both ignorant Scientism and virulent Leftism.

So your comment above has the characteristics of a constipated religious blind belief.

Robert Coble said...

I smell HUGO the troll at the 99% level of uncited statistics.

Watch the reaction. . .