| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:46 am Post subject: Satellitegate Scandal |
 |
|
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7508-top-climate-scientists-speak-out-on-the-satellitegate-scandal
| Quote: |
US Government admits global warming satellite sensors �degraded� - temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.
In an escalating row dubbed �Satellitegate� further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World�s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.
Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down. |
Trully it must be only the most diehard fundamentalists that still believe this green religion rubbish.
I particularly like this bit-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
| Quote: |
| Worryingly, as to how many of its users (mostly international meteorologists and climate researchers) were affected has not beent revealed by NOAA. But we know the automated numbers were sold throughout the world and it�s readings of land and ocean temperatures have been used by climate scientists in their models since the satellite�s launch in September 2000. As a consequence and without full disclosure by NOAA, it is feared innumerable scientific studies about rising global temperatures are now rendered entirely invalid. |
Who would have thought.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surely the outcome of this is neutral. It doesn't mean there is or isn't climate change and negates studies done since 2000.
The best thing now would be to look at the data pre 2000 and gather new data...and do the studies again. I don't see how you get this ...
| Quote: |
| Trully it must be only the most diehard fundamentalists that still believe this green religion rubbish. |
from the articles quoted. You seem to be more than a little biased. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
Surely the outcome of this is neutral. It doesn't mean there is or isn't climate change and negates studies done since 2000.
The best thing now would be to look at the data pre 2000 and gather new data...and do the studies again. I don't see how you get this ...
| Quote: |
| Trully it must be only the most diehard fundamentalists that still believe this green religion rubbish. |
from the articles quoted. You seem to be more than a little biased. |
damn straight. more than a little. but when you have warmist rubbish poured down your throat about how the world is going to burn burn burn if don't stop burning the coal, and the greenies (in this country at least) want to send us back to the dark ages, you tend to get "more than a little biased". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
Surely the outcome of this is neutral. It doesn't mean there is or isn't climate change and negates studies done since 2000.
The best thing now would be to look at the data pre 2000 and gather new data...and do the studies again. I don't see how you get this .... |
If in the meantime we can get back to some common sense a build a few coal powered power stations, so that my power bills don't increase again by 200 to 300 % like they have done in the last year , yes by all means study away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder what other information has been concealed elsewhere or outright destroyed as Phil Jones advised some of his colleagues to do.
Guess we'll never know. But it seems obvious at least that the people promoting AGW have a clear and vested interest in promoting it and ignoring any facts that say otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
If in the meantime we can get back to some common sense a build a few coal powered power stations, so that my power bills don't increase again by 200 to 300 % like they have done in the last year , yes by all means study away. |
Tell me about it. I've been running my AC all summer, it's scorching out there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
There would have to be some pretty hard evidence -against- climate change for me to think it wasnt happening at this point.
I look at atmospheric CO2 now and historically, compared to warming and cooling periods in the past and it's just insanely higher now. Considering that it appears to be related (though possibly not in a causal relationship) to global temperature, it's pretty disconcerting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
There would have to be some pretty hard evidence -against- climate change for me to think it wasnt happening at this point.
I look at atmospheric CO2 now and historically, compared to warming and cooling periods in the past and it's just insanely higher now. Considering that it appears to be related (though possibly not in a causal relationship) to global temperature, it's pretty disconcerting. |
Insanely is correct and now we know false or at least completely compromised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| There would have to be some pretty hard evidence -against- climate change for me to think it wasnt happening at this point. |
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/
Our JGR Paper on Feedbacks is Published
August 27th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
| Quote: |
Positive cloud feedback amplifies global warming in all the climate models now used by the IPCC to forecast global warming. But if cloud feedback is sufficiently negative, then manmade global warming becomes a non-issue.
....
The new article shows much more evidence to support the case: from satellite data, a simple climate model, and from the IPCC AR4 climate models themselves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| There would have to be some pretty hard evidence -against- climate change for me to think it wasnt happening at this point. |
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/
Our JGR Paper on Feedbacks is Published
August 27th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
| Quote: |
Positive cloud feedback amplifies global warming in all the climate models now used by the IPCC to forecast global warming. But if cloud feedback is sufficiently negative, then manmade global warming becomes a non-issue.
....
The new article shows much more evidence to support the case: from satellite data, a simple climate model, and from the IPCC AR4 climate models themselves. |
|
Break this down for us: what is the significance of this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
