Since we haven't stirred the global warming pot lately.

[Archangel M]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

 

[Archangel M]

Wow. Two in one day...

APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation

 

[billc]

Sorry Archangel, I beat you to it, look under the threads and you'll see the one I have on these two articles. Sorry.

 

[Archangel M]

Should have guessed.

 

[billc]

You have a better thread title though. I wouldn't mind if they took mine down and left yours.

 

[Sukerkin]

I have to say that this wasn't exactly big news to me, as the chemistry in the atmosphere is still not well understood when it comes to a macro-scale analysis. So it's not a surprise that the models are inaccurate.

I do wish that policy makers wouldn't place so much faith in those models tho, precisely because they are not very refined yet. When they come up with policies that make sense anyhow, regardless of global warming, then it doesn't really matter. When they make economically hampering choices that are based on faulty 'advice' then it is a problem and one that needs to be addressed.

One point on the writer of the article linked in the OP, calling the models "Alarmist" is hardly an objective term and such posturing just reduces his own credibility as a commentator. Science and Economics do have influence on Politics, yes; but in and of themselves they need to be discussed and analysed without showing symptoms of Political Platform Building Syndrome.

 

[punisher73]

Hmmm, NASA shows that the "global warming" that democrats have been pushing is now a red herring, and then Obama cuts NASA's funding....


Conspiracy?







***Should be noted that the post was an attempt at humor on how this will be further twisted by far right wingists.

 

[Archangel M]

I have to say that this wasn't exactly big news to me, as the chemistry in the atmosphere is still not well understood when it comes to a macro-scale analysis. So it's not a surprise that the models are inaccurate.

I do wish that policy makers wouldn't place so much faith in those models tho, precisely because they are not very refined yet. When they come up with policies that make sense anyhow, regardless of global warming, then it doesn't really matter. When they make economically hampering choices that are based on faulty 'advice' then it is a problem and one that needs to be addressed.

One point on the writer of the article linked in the OP, calling the models "Alarmist" is hardly an objective term and such posturing just reduces his own credibility as a commentator. Science and Economics do have influence on Politics, yes; but in and of themselves they need to be discussed and analysed without showing symptoms of Political Platform Building Syndrome.

Thing is Suk..to defend the "policy makers"...when every movie star, television show, Discovery Channel/Nat Geo show, magazine and so on is decrying the "end of the world" due to man made global warming (every hurricane is now worse due to GW...the Polar Bears are drowning because of GW..yadda yadda) what can we expect of our politicians when all the hand wringers come screaming at them to "DO SOMETHING"?

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye there's a lot of truth in that, Angel. Mind you, they are good enough at ignoring us, the mere electorate, when it suits them. Which makes me suspect there is money involved when they don't ignore the 'popular' line :lol:. Poor souls can't win with me .

 

[MaxiMe]

Lets see here, 7-29-2011 8:49 Am PST Sunny San Diego summer time. Grey sky and wow a whooping 67 F.
Yup that heat is a killer.

 

[Nomad]

I have to say that this wasn't exactly big news to me, as the chemistry in the atmosphere is still not well understood when it comes to a macro-scale analysis. So it's not a surprise that the models are inaccurate.

I do wish that policy makers wouldn't place so much faith in those models tho, precisely because they are not very refined yet. When they come up with policies that make sense anyhow, regardless of global warming, then it doesn't really matter. When they make economically hampering choices that are based on faulty 'advice' then it is a problem and one that needs to be addressed.

One point on the writer of the article linked in the OP, calling the models "Alarmist" is hardly an objective term and such posturing just reduces his own credibility as a commentator. Science and Economics do have influence on Politics, yes; but in and of themselves they need to be discussed and analysed without showing symptoms of Political Platform Building Syndrome.

Well said. Both the parts about putting more faith in models which may or may not accurately predict real-world situations and in noting that the use of rhetoric (repeated use of "alarmist" models, scientists, etc) adds nothing to the underlying debate.

Personally, I see these results as a very good thing. They mean that the "worst case scenario" predictions are likely off by quite a bit, which is good news for the planet and everything on it. I don't think it means that we can or should suddenly turn a blind eye to things like carbon (and other) emissions indefinitely, but that we have more time to change the way we do things.

What will be interesting is seeing what the refined models (with the newer data from NASA) predict. It doesn't look like anyone's actually checked yet (possibly because these models are very complex, and it's likely more than a matter of just plugging in a different number on an excel spreadsheet).

 

[CoryKS]

The study doesn't 'blow a hole in global warming alarmism' because whether there is global warming or not was never the point. It was always a scare tactic to encourage people to live their lives the way a few 'enlightened' individuals feel that they should. After all, wouldn't the world be a perfect place if everybody was just like [your name here]?