Breaking: NASA U-turn Admits Global Warming Bias on Sun’s Key Role

[Wild Cobra]

Link: Breaking: NASA U-turn Admits Global Warming Bias on Sun’s Key Role (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/98-breaking-nasa-u-turn-admits-global-warming-bias-on-sun-s-key-role.html)

First sentence:

In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.

I don't have time to look for the source material, but what have I been saying about the sun guys? Have to get ready for work. See you all after midnight Pacific time.

[Th'Pusher]

Don't forget your lunch bucket.

[Juggity]

"climate alarmism"

interesting terminology there

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol There about page is about how they want to redo the peer review process and every article they post is about climate and AGW skepticism. No bias there considering the ratio of scientific works on the subject.

They try and act like solar variation is not included in climate models.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=solar+variability&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

Go to Google scholar if you do not believe me. It is quite obvious that not only do they consider it but they have studies that specifically control for solar activity to determine the effects of solar radiation.

Further the National Academy link is to the publication centered around a NASA workshop.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=R2

That is a link to the summary of said workshop that was held over a year ago and includes the following


This workshop report contains no recommendations, findings, or statements of consensus.
Instead, this workshop report summarizes the views expressed by individual workshop participants
(invited speakers and guests).

The name dropping of the national academy was nice though. Dr Hansen was not present. At no point does the article mention Hansen at all whatsoever.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=28

Indeed to the contrary on page 28 and 29 is a discussion of the panel findings. The panel initially discussed where they were at in contained information about solar variabilty. The audience is then questioned if important topics had already been discussed. The response was that many had but there was more work to do. Basically what they said is that more data that is continuous in measurement as opposed to stops and starts would help the models better. This is obviously not a situation where they are saying that they have been blocked from their work. They are trying to refine their craft.

In contrast I present to you the Official Stance of the NAS and most of the Western Worlds stance on climate change. This is the world consensus:


Conclusion
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC
principles4, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of
climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the
issue is included in all relevant national and international
strategies. As national science academies, we commit to
working with governments to help develop and implement
the national and international response to the challenge of
climate change.
G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past
greenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8
nations are committed to showing leadership in addressing
climate change and assisting developing nations to meet
the challenges of adaptation and mitigation.
We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the
Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:
· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear
and increasing.
· Launch an international study5 to explore scientificallyinformed
targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios,
that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed
unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to
contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net
global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed
action will increase the risk of adverse environmental
effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and
technological capacity best suited to their circumstances,
enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate
and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while
explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.
· Show leadership in developing and deploying clean
energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency,
and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to
enhance research and development efforts, which can
better inform climate change decisions.




Academia Brasiliera de Ciências Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Brazil Canada China
Academié des Sciences, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Indian National Science Academy,
France Leopoldina, Germany India
Accademia dei Lincei, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Italy Japan Russia
Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences,
United Kingdom United States of America
Notes

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

It's written such that it is easy for the lay man to understand. It's quite easy to judge for yourself.

The article provides a link to a PBS interview with a senator that claims that Hansen was not to be touched. I found no such quote. To the contrary, I found the following:


... I don't remember exactly where the data came from, but we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. Now, this is a tough thing for a scientist to do when you're going to make such an outspoken statement as this and you're part of the federal bureaucracy. Jim Hansen has always been a very brave and outspoken individual.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

It's obvious the Senator is saying that he was very brave to face tthe scrutiny that he did.

Now the one that is drawing all these parallels is one Dr. Timothy Ball.

http://heartland.org/timothy-ball

As you can see he works for the Heartland Institute. As many of you know this is a far right think tank in DC.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute_personnel

That is a list of their board of directors and as you can see it is a bunch of real estate execs, oilco executives, big pharma companies and their lawyers and lobbyists.

In short the article from above is misleading, misrepresentative and entirely full of shit.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

[DMC]

tfl;dfr

[Agloco]

I don't have time to look for the source material......

Par

[TDMVPDPOY]

green house gas emissions, theres so much of it in space that its out of our control what we emit, and what is already in space still traveling to create greater masses of gas...

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy.

Why doesn't it surprise me to pick and choose any part you can find to dismiss the idea?

Agloco... Why are you always nothing buy a globfly?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC. I went line by line on each contention. It wasn't pick and choose. It was an indictment of the entire damn thing.

1) Scientists have not been discouraged from talking about the sun. I showed a bunch of studies from a "sun variability climate" google scholar search. There are reams of it.
2) The NAS workshop that was cited as to demonstrate 1 was refuted. I gave specific page numbers where the panel discusses what was being done and what more they could do. I then showed the official stance of the NAS.
3) They then said that Senator Wirth in an interview alluded to Hansen being untouchable and then I quoted a specific part of the article where Wirth said Hansen was brave to come out considering all the opposition he faced. That wasn't an allusion. It was a direct statement. This reminds me of the CO2 lags temperature article that is cited so often where the study specifically refutes that nonsense.
4) I then discussed Ball who was the one connecting the 'dots' for this piece. I demonstrated how he was from an organization just left of separatist militias.

That was not picking and choosing. That was all of the points of the article.

What's not surprising to me is that you couldn't figure that out.

[TeyshaBlue]

That was not picking and choosing. That was all of the points of the article.



The article, WC, that you couldn't be bothered to source, by the way. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[boutons_deux]

House Science Chair’s First Action Is To Hold A Climate Change Denier Hearing (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/18/1440001/house-science-chairs-first-action-is-to-hold-a-climate-denier-hearing/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/lamar-smith_0-300x209.jpg

Coming off of the hottest year in U.S. history (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/08/1415131/noaa-2012-was-officially-the-warmest-year-on-record-second-most-extreme/) and 333 months (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/18/1353161/halfway-to-hell-and-high-water-333rd-month-in-a-row-global-temperatures-exceed-long-term-average/) of higher-than-average global temperatures, Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) first move as the new chair of the House Science and Technology Committee includes a hearing on climate science (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/house-science-chairman-lamar-smith-puts-climate-change-assessment-on-agenda.html/), according to Dallas News.

For Smith, who criticized (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/28/1248751/rep-lamar-smith-who-criticized-the-idea-of-human-made-global-warming-set-to-be-chair-of-house-science-panel/) “the idea of human-made global warming,” the hearing will be an opportunity to give a platform to the committee’s climate zombies:

I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots, and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing. It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions. During this process, we should focus on the facts rather than on a partisan agenda.


Smith has blasted the media as “lap dogs” (http://lamarsmith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=196349) for not devoting enough airtime to climate deniers and implored networks to not “hide the facts.” Unsurprisingly, he has taken $500,000 from oil and gas (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&recs=20) over his political career and $10,000 (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00001811&type=I) from Koch industries last year.

GOP members of the committee “keep science at farthest arm’s length” with its long list of climate deniers (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/house-science-panel-sees-no-climate-change/nTrM2/). “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” House Science Subcommittee Chair Paul Broun (R-GA) said. But the list also includes (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/19/207062/the-climate-zombie-caucus-of-the-112th-congress/) former Chair Ralph Hall (R-TX), Vice Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and subcommittee chairs Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Larry Bucshon (R-IN).
If climate-denying Republicans want the facts and not “a partisan agenda,” they can just read the new draft National Climate Assessment, which dives into the consequences (http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-change-set-to-make-america-hotter-drier-and-more-disaster-prone/) of a hotter, drier, disaster-prone climate.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/18/1440001/house-science-chairs-first-action-is-to-hold-a-climate-denier-hearing/

Just another (old white inherited-wealth) TX Koch-sucking, pure asshole entering anti-science garbage into the House's records.

[DarrinS]

For Smith, who criticized “the idea of human-made global warming,” the hearing will be an opportunity to give a platform to the committee’s climate zombies:

I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots, and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing. It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions. During this process, we should focus on the facts rather than on a partisan agenda.




Wow, what an unreasonable position.


Lol, climate zombies

[Wild Cobra]

The article, WC, that you couldn't be bothered to source, by the way. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif
Why are you guys such asses. I found the article right before having to go for work. The only thing that supports the title was that one of the NASA scientists brought up some interesting solar stuff generally ignored. I agree the article isn't what I thought it would be. There is no sup[porting source material outside of a couple things brought up in the past. This was a meeting of scientists. Nothing more.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow, what an unreasonable position.


Lol, climate zombies

Depends on the degree of certainty. We do know how much warming many things are causing to a reasonable degree of certainty, actually. So yes, what a scientifically unreasonable position.

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on the degree of certainty. We do know how much warming many things are causing to a reasonable degree of certainty, actually. So yes, what a scientifically unreasonable position.
To acknowledge there needs to be more study in more areas?

Are you saying it is reasonable to make dire prediction without all the facts?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you guys such asses. I found the article right before having to go for work. The only thing that supports the title was that one of the NASA scientists brought up some interesting solar stuff generally ignored. I agree the article isn't what I thought it would be. There is no sup[porting source material outside of a couple things brought up in the past. This was a meeting of scientists. Nothing more.

So let's get this straight. You post an article that you just liked the title of from an unknown source but never read. You come in later that day and say I am picking and choosing from the article that you never read and insult agloco. Now you come in admit that you never read the article and just liked the title of it, continue to make the argument that solar issues are ignored despite the "meeting of scientists" being from over a year ago and was about solar issues and climate, and then say that we are the ones being asses?

Pole-rack yourself please.

[Wild Cobra]

You still are either too stupid to get what occurred, or you are just being a jerk. Sorry if your mental capacity isn't adequate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
Yep...

Lacking mental capacity. It doesn't surprise me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

Why can't you accept what I have said?

[Agloco]

Why are you guys such asses.

Probably because:


The article, WC, that you couldn't be bothered to source, by the way.

Thanks for the drive by thread though.

[Wild Cobra]

Probably because:



Thanks for the drive by thread though.

My God.

Are you really so Spiteful? Like Fuzzy? Like Chump?

Again, I posted that article for reading just before heading off to work. That is why I didn't verify any of it. Now if you with to criticize me for that, and laying out up front in the OP that I did not yet verify the source, then you are one pathic ass.

[redzero]

Maybe reading the article BEFORE you posted it would have been a good idea.

[GoodOdor]

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe reading the article BEFORE you posted it would have been a good idea.
That's not the point at all now is it.

I specifically indicated in the OP that I hadn't verified it yet.

[redzero]

That's not the point at all now is it.

I specifically stated in the OP that I hadn't verified it yet.

That didn't stop you from criticizing the points made by people who actually did read the article. And you should have verified the article if you were going to post it.

This is just another instance of Wild Cobra getting mad at others for making fun of his stupidity.

[Wild Cobra]

That didn't stop you from criticizing the points made by people who actually did read the article. And you should have verified the article if you were going to post it.

This is just another instance of Wild Cobra getting mad at others for making fun of his stupidity.
Quite the contrary. I am laughing because you all are making fun of me out of your ignorance. Plus, you are being an ignorant ass by not reading it and following what occurred.

Fuzzy for example, quoted a presentation from a speaker at the event. Not the conclusion of the event. The first sentence I quoted in the OP was from what a NASA speaker said at the event. Not any conclusion of the event. This event had several voices across the board, so no one voice should be considered the "conclusion" like fuzzy would have you believe.

[ElNono]

That didn't stop you from criticizing the points made by people who actually did read the article. And you should have verified the article if you were going to post it.

This is just another instance of Wild Cobra getting mad at others for making fun of his stupidity.

:lol what else is new?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

God, youre a moron. As I said that entire document did not even have the word Hansen in it nor was he present. At no point in the entire log was a statement saying someone was prevented from studying solar effects. As has been said the supposed statement was not sourced. It's just your random site that claims that took place and that is corroborated nowhere.

Further other parts to the unsourced article cited Wirth. I quote Wirth stating the opposite of what was claimed.

You know when everyone is mocking you then perhaps it's you and not us, eh?

Polerack yourself. And then change the OP stating that the article was misleading and unsourced therefor should be disregarded. Otherwise you are just being your biased dumbass self. I expect the latter to happen.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

God, youre a moron. As I said that entire document did not even have the word Hansen in it nor was he present. At no point in the entire log was a statement saying someone was prevented from studying solar effects. As has been said the supposed statement was not sourced. It's just your random site that claims that took place and that is corroborated nowhere.

Further other parts to the unsourced article cited Wirth. I quote Wirth stating the opposite of what was claimed.

You know when everyone is mocking you then perhaps it's you and not us, eh?

Polerack yourself. And then change the OP stating that the article was misleading and unsourced therefor should be disregarded. Otherwise you are just being your biased dumbass self. I expect the latter to happen.
Who were you arguing against other than the straw man you built?

Where did I mention Hansen in reference to this article?

Where did I indicate someone was trying to prevent solar studies?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DERP DUUUH DERP DERP

You posted the article. If you cannot defend those things then you are agreeing that the article is full of shit. As such you should remove it and apologize for posting something without knowing wtf it contains.

Are you trolling me with your stupidity or what? It's not hard to fathom.

[Wild Cobra]

You posted the article. If you cannot defend those things then you are agreeing that the article is full of shit. As such you should remove it and apologize for posting something without knowing wtf it contains.

Are you trolling me with your stupidity or what? It's not hard to fathom.
You are the one being stupid about it. I have always said that solar forcing has more impact than it is given credit for. Nothing is changed. I'm not apologizing for your stupidity. It is what it is. I posted the article, reminded everyone I have been saying the sun has more impact than given credit for, and even stated I did not verify the source for the article yet.

You, Fuzzy, should be apologizing for your stupidity over this matter.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who cares if you said that. The articles basis for saying that are incorrect. So you found an article that came to the conclusion that you wanted but you don't care whether or not it was accurate in the manner that it comes to that conclusion. That is intellectually dishonest.

Ideology and confirmation bias with more than a touch of stupidity is the WC way.

[Wild Cobra]

Liar.

I was not being dishonest. I will admit the article did not provide what I thought it would, but the silly shit is on you. You keep barking like an ankle biter, that is too stupid to know when to stop.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if you agree that the article does not say what you thought it said then why have you not edited the OP? This is the first time you have admitted that the article was completely full of shit and misleading so fix it. If you leave it as it is now you are misleading people. It's as simple as that.

There was no NASA U-turn or admission of bias. You still have your name on something saying it is as so. This is not hard to figure out. Your name is on the lie. Own up to it and fix the damn thing.

[Wild Cobra]

So if you agree that the article does not say what you thought it said then why have you not edited the OP?

Why should I? it's already out there.


This is the first time you have admitted that the article was completely full of shit and misleading so fix it.

Think what you want. I don't care what you think.


If you leave it as it is now you are misleading people. It's as simple as that.

It only misleads feeble minded people like you. I'm not editing it.


There was no NASA U-turn or admission of bias.

I agree.


You still have your name on something saying it is as so. This is not hard to figure out. Your name is on the lie. Own up to it and fix the damn thing.

Keep dreaming...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then you are willfully leaving up information that you know to be wrong.

I was never mislead. You were the one that didn't realize that it was wrong and posted it in the first place. As you admit those that were mislead by it are feebleminded. You were fooled by it. Can you figure out the logical conclusion of that?

[Wild Cobra]

So then you are willfully leaving up information that you know to be wrong.

I was never mislead. You were the one that didn't realize that it was wrong and posted it in the first place. As you admit those that were mislead by it are feebleminded. You were fooled by it. Can you figure out the logical conclusion of that?
Is it really misleading? There are several solar studies by NASA that confirm the sun has a greater effect on global warming than previously thought. Just search the NASA site.

As for you bringing Hansen into your assumption, he is not the only NASA voice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is it really misleading? There are several solar studies by NASA that confirm the sun has a greater effect on global warming than previously thought. Just search the NASA site.

As for you bringing Hansen into your assumption, he is not the only NASA voice.

The article accuses of bias and that such studies don't exist. It's in the titel and clearly a fucking lie. You even admit this. You are obviously satisfied with supporting a lie. It's things like this that make me think you would do the same shit for any tyrant that you were partisan for.

There is no 'new' revelation about solar availability. It was big shit around 2008 and the Heartland Institutes of the world were all over it. I have a friend that was working as an aide for a GOP senator at the time and he used to send me the briefs they would get. This was stuff was from astrophysicists, legitimate, and very compelling. The thing is though that when they applied the new data to the models it didn't change all that much and the change still didn't account for the warming we receive.

This is because this is how science works. The astrophysicists and the climate guys --both work at the same fucking place-- got together and figured it out. You notice it's not astrophysicists that are complaining about how solar analysis is not given proper treatment?

You like to dumb things down to black bodies or vision of coke cans. They and pretty much most everyone else works at a higher level.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess you don't know about the new satellite up there.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Point to me the part in the article that discusses the 'new satellite.' Just because you googled up some more shit does not mitigate that this article is a misleading piece of shit that does not demonstrate bias. You are enabling a lie for your partisan purposes. Wonder how far you would go with that for someone you decided to follow.

[Wild Cobra]

The article doesn't mention it. Thing with all the solar and earth sensing satellites up there is a thing called instrument drift. Even the initial calibration doesn't hold once launched. The data we see on charts from satellites drifts, at unknown levels. The drift is just educated guesswork. I forget which satellite instrument it is by acronym, I think it is TIM, or maybe it's TMI. Anyway, NASA has determined it is the most successful with the least instrument drift. They are about to launch an improved version of it.

[Wild Cobra]

Correction...

The new TIM was launched in March 2011.

[Wild Cobra]

Click on the image for a good link about TIM (Total Irradiance Monitoring.)


http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_6hour_640x480.png (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/instruments/tim.htm)

I also suggest reading the top two PDF documents in the bottom of this link:

GISS/NASA: Glory TIM Science (http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/tim/)

[Wild Cobra]

The article, WC, that you couldn't be bothered to source, by the way. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif
I've been reading quite a bit of the linked material and searching these peoples work out today. Please note that it is only a presentation summary of the actual event. I have read some very good stuff.

Effectively, all theses scientists are saying how little we actually know about the suns influence on our climate, and that more effort needs to be made. Nearly every one acknowledges one or more solar factors in their studies that either could, or do, influence climate by more than previously thought.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The article was about NASA bias towards solar variability.

Now you are showing me NASA figures as proof of the suns impact and how they are working on refining their model. Which is going to be?

Bias or that their models consider it and they are trying to improve them?

That is the subject of the article. I am not going after your red herring. Quite frankly I am not going to give your Dr EZ bake science anything better than a :lol.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

What asinine correlations you bring to a discussion.

Have any proper questions? Anything not already covered?

[Wild Cobra]

The NASA speaker at the event was Charles Jackman. I have been reviewing various material available by him. It is rather interesting stuff, and it wouldn't surprise me he he said the Sun has a larger effect on our climate than previously thought. I'm not going to copy and paste a bunch of material right now, but for anyone interested:

NASA search: 84 pieces of work by Charles Jackman (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=4294584599)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've already admitted that the article is flase and misleading and that you are going to keep it up anyway. You go ahead and prove that point some more by showing NASA scientists that are doing what you originally claimed they were not allowed to do.

[boutons_deux]

Koch-Funded Study Finds 2.5°F Warming Of Land Since 1750 Is Manmade, ‘Solar Forcing Does Not Appear To Contribute’

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/decadal-with-forcing-small.gif


Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/20/1474571/koch-funded-study-finds-25f-warming-of-land-since-1750-is-manmade-solar-forcing-does-not-appear-to-contribute/

needs more study! :lol

the jury is still out! :lol

[Agloco]

That's not the point at all now is it.

I specifically indicated in the OP that I hadn't verified it yet.


That didn't stop you from criticizing the points made by people who actually did read the article. And you should have verified the article if you were going to post it.

This is just another instance of Wild Cobra getting mad at others for making fun of his stupidity.

R0 with the goods.

WC with the dumbs.

Par.