Friday, June 5, 2015

Climate Change Skeptics, Now What Say You?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

According to new scientific data the earth has been warning at the same rate the past decade as it did during the previous decade. There has been no pause in climate change, aka global warming.

The importance of the global-warming pause, conservatives explained, was that we needed to get the science right. “One lesson of the IPCC report is that now is the time for policy caution. Let's see if the nonwarming trend continues, in which case the climate models will need remodeling,” explained the Journal’s editors.

But fortunately we now have an answer. A new paper released today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that the apparent slowdown in warming was an artifact of mis-measurement. The Earth is not warming at a slower rate. It’s warming at the same fast pace as it did the previous decade:

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. No matter how much evidence is presented, the global warming deniers will never change. Their resistance to scientific evidence is predicated on ideology. Why would we expect a party whose leading pols deny evolution to understand anything as complex as climate change/global warming?

  2. Apparently least here.

  3. Gee Jerry, what a surprise. Maybe Will will get around to sharing his views and giving us a link or two to rebuttals to this. He's by far more skeptical than I ever was.

  4. Oh, that's got James Hanson's lying-assed paws written all over it. HERE is the actual data, the satellite data that you CANNOT screw with - (Hanson and his co-conspirators tend to use contaminated land thermometers) - I mean, my God, this is insanity. And even it was was warming, human CO2 (a tiny part of the overall energy budget) does not control the weather!!!!!!!!!!! The sun, the oceans, cosmic rays, clouds, planetary perturbations, lunar cycles, galactic cycles, plate tectonics - this is what controls the weather! I strong suggest that you people go to Youtube and watch Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton debate Gavin Schmidt and that lady from the Unions of Concerned Scientists and, yes, see how completely ridiculous that this is.

    1. Cosmic rays vs weather- opinion has been divided regarding the formation of low level clouding due to aerosolization of water molecules by cosmic radiation flux. It is known that
      cosmic radiation cycles in 10-12 year increments and that while mean global temperatures
      have risen, overall cosmic ray counts have increased: from 1957 (3800 cpm) to 2012 (4300 cpm) . The effect on cloud cover is considered to be minimal to none, although studies continue as to whether cloud cover protects from solar thermal effect (cooling) or tends to
      hold heat in (heating). And the arguments continue between mainline scientists and those
      funded by coal, oil and Koch.

  5. And I can tell you exactly how these scoundrels operate. They say, "if you take away a,b,c,and d, then mankind's contribution to global warming has continued unabated", and it's like, no s--t, Sherlock, of course mankind's contribution is continuing. Hello! But that wasn't the prediction. The prediction (and 72 of the 75 models have been wrong) was that these contributions would supercede all of the natural variables and the warming WOULD BE MASSIVE.......And you really have to understand how science operates here. When you have a hypothesis and your predictions fail to materialize, you alter the hypothesis. You don't torture the damn data!!!......Of course if it's your job to locate catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and your livelihood depends upon it, you're probably apt to do just about any damned thing.

  6. Will will have to break up his rebuttal into multiple comments due to the word limit.

  7. Skeptical Science (the people Will warns us run an "anti science smear site") says the satellite data (the data Christy and Spencer used to conclude that there was a "warming trend of only 0.09°C per decade, well below the surface temperature trend of 0.17°C per decade"), when corrected (via removal of Christy and Spencer's algebraic error and correcting for diurnal drift) "are in good agreement with models". 

    Note that Christy himself acknowledged this error saying, the "discrepancies [between surface and atmospheric temperatures in the troposphere] no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected".
    Skeptic claim addressed: Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere.
    (Note: this info can also be found in my 10/17/2013 blog post on the subject). Anyway, now that Will knows Christy and Spencer got the satellite data wrong, is he going to keep citing it?

    1. Somehow both of my links got messed up...

      The first one should be...

      And the second should be...

      My reason for posting the link to my blog is to point out that I read Will's commentary concerning "satellite data that you CANNOT screw with" when he first cited it (and continued to cite it over and over)... but Christy and Spencer DID "screw" with it. First, they did not account for something called the "diurnal drift" (which refers to the fact that "The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average [however] the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays)...

      And second they made an algebraic error. But these things happen. I would not go as far as to label either fellow a "scoundrel" for not being perfect. Christy acknowledged the mistake.

      BTW, just because I noticed this some time ago I do not think that makes it an "old bone" as I've never asked him about it (being banned from his blog). I'm very interested in his response... I'm going to guess it involves Skeptical Science lying (both about Christy and Spencer's errors and about Christy acknowledging the mistake). But we shall see... If he replies - something he did not do when I asked him about something he claimed Thomas Ricks said in his book.

    2. Rebutting another's position on contested issues does not necessarily constitute old bones. This post wss input climate change/global warming. Therefore your rebuttal is certainly within the range of discussion.

      However, you would do well to confine your comments to supported data and leave the guesses at the doorstep. If you really want a response from Will.

    3. It does not appear as though he intends to respond. I could make a guess as to why, but I suppose RN would not like that. Suffice to say that he just recently put up another "no warming" post on his blog. As well as a comment concerning what Thomas Ricks' book supposedly says. Despite the interview Ricks gave in which he said the total opposite...

    4. It is time you took the issue to Will's blog and or your own. I has been increasingly obvious you do indeed have an agenda with respect to Will, dmarks, and me. And, it is again getting tiring as well s distracting. Your point has been made, you know Will is not going to change his views on the issue, and by continuing any further on this post you certainly are not going to force agreement.

      Thank you in advance for your understanding.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.