PDA

View Full Version : Money and the United Nations



MrsMo
07-28-2011, 05:41 PM
NASA satellite data from the last 11 years clearly show that the United Nations' computer model showing global warming are greatly overstated. I am convinced that the information fed into the computers at the UN was cherry picked, if not outright falsified. It's not the computer's fault - GIGO. What I want to know is, who is profiting? Who is making money off crying wolf and making all the right wing nut jobs cry themselves to sleep over "saving the planet" every night?

For those of you interested in the article that set me off, here's the link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Hmmm, now that I think about it, here's a bit more of a synopsis from the article - you know, just in case it mysteriously disappears and yahoo denies all knowledge of it.


...reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
...In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
...real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
...The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

MrsMo
07-29-2011, 06:31 PM
Of course, climatologists are busily refuting the new study.
"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."
The problem here is claiming satellite data to be imperfect then pretending that estimations of pre-historic temperatures are perfect.

Is there climate change? Of course there is. Yes, we can estimate temperatures from pre-historic eras, and those show periods of heating and cooling. We're entering a time of warming; how long an era or how warm it will get is a matter for debate. That's not what is making money for the alarmists. What IS making money is the claim that the warming is human driven. Now that there appears to be objective data showing that human impact on the climate is minimal the alarmists see their profits flying out the window.

Here's a link to today's story, refuting (poorly, I think) the NASA data: http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-debunked-not-fast-234403696.html;_ylt=AuALYrlXvQEr3_46FJGvoKys0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTNhdDhtdDRoBHBrZwNmOTk2NzJkYS1kNmYyLTM2OD QtYjdjMS03ODkyMGE5ZWZkZWQEcG9zAzE1BHNlYwNNZWRpYVRv cFN0b3J5BHZlcgM3OWUxZTVhMC1iOTczLTExZTAtYWUzZi0xNT BiYWQ1YTMzYmM-;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Kitz E Kat
08-05-2011, 11:23 PM
We will only be able to tell if there was climate change in a few thousand years when we have collected enough data to enable a proper statistical analysis!
At that stage I predict we can stand in front of Al Gore and say "in your face" :-)