always knew global warming was a hoax

New 11 year study from NASA satellites shows global warming computer models were way off! No surprise there, The Al Gore stuff was getting a little out of control and the tree huggers were eating it up LMAO!

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Wow, that was hard to read. Did someone replace every other word with "alarmist"?

Somebody needs to crack open their thesaurus.

"The study indicates far less future global warming will occur..."

Note the key words here are "less" not none.

And I'm glad the OP had the scientific knowledge to know ahead of the experiments what the result would be.

This is an example of what science does... it creates a model, it gets tested and revised as necessary.

They had to rebrand it, after all, as "Climate Change," because climate does nothing but change. it's cold, Climate Change. it's hot, Climate Change. There are too many hurricanes, Climate Change. There are too few hurricanes, Climate Change. There's a tsunami, Climate Change; even though tsunamis are seismic rather than meteorological, but who knows how nuclear power affects the movements of the Earth's crust over the mantle, so, Climate Change!

It's not a hoax. It's a scam. It brings in money for research and power for bureucrats. Next thing you know a gas we all exhale and that plants need in order to exist, will be classified as a pollutant by some government agency. Oh, wait....

Well, a tax on breathing should help drive up the debt, I mean, drive up the deficit, I mean, keep spending high, I mean, bring spending to new heights, I mean a politician is incapable of cutting a dime.

While Remote Sensing may be a peer reviewed publication, it's clear that Forbes is not. James Taylor should stick to writing overly sappy love songs...

The other big problem is the data collection sites and methods are questionable at best. Too much curve fitting is also taking place.

In order for me to take the global warming crowd seriously I would want to see the data collection sites, in order to see how these sites have changed over the decades.

Hmmm I'm going to wait for a more intelligently written article before I change my mind on what scientists have been telling us for the last 20 years.

Wow, that WAS bad. Hard to take a point seriously with writing like that. Anyone on the forum, ANY ONE OF US, could write better than that. Yes, including That Guy.

A question, though, since this topic has been brought up. I've always understood "temperature" as a measure of a unit's kinetic energy. A molecule with low kinetic energy would vibrate slowly, causing low friction and as a result give of low heat (be cold), whereas one with high kinetic energy would vibrate quickly, cause a lot of friction and thereby give off a lot of heat (be hot). I get that the sun gives off radiation energy which strikes the Earth and causes the ground to warm, that heat tranfers into the air touching it, which rises and transmits the warmth all over. And I can understand how cloud cover (or CO2, or other gases) can "heat" the Earth by keeping that warm air low (not unlike a blanket, or a layer of hair on a body) What I DONT get is how heat escapes into space. Isn't space "empty"? How can a molecule transmit it's energy into somewhere that has nothing in it to transmit it to?

Quote: Keyser

how these sites have changed over the decades.

Decades? Is that long enough to do accurate trending?
That's like projecting the next roulette spin by looking at the last 30 numbers that hit.