NASA Study Scientifically Proves Man-made Global-warming Alarmism is a Hoax

According to Mario Loyola of NRO during the 1990's the climate was considered an example of "chaos theory" until Al Gore got his grubby little hands into the mix and perpetuated the man-made global warming myth for his personal gain.  It turns out that scientists didn't have a clue as to what impact humans has on the climate. The man-made global warming propagandist scientists' theories and measures were all supposition and not a proven fact. Then there was "Climategate" which showed that scientists were "hiding the decline".   Now the bell which was rung loud and clear by man-made climate change alarmists needs to be silenced for their claims have now been scientifically proven to be at best highly distorted and at worst a fabricated lie according to the data of a NASA study.

Here is a press release on a study that shatters climate alarmists assumptions via National Review Online:

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said.

Here is a video of Dr. Roy Spencer on with Lou Dobbs. 

Then Mario said,

Skeptics have long been able to point to inconvenient facts that cast doubt on the climate alarmists’ consensus — for example, the fact that temperatures have apparently risen much less slowly in the last 20 years than in the 20 before that, although everyone agrees there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now then there was then. But this is virtually the first time that central assumptions and predictions of the models used by the International Panel on Climate Change — the basis of climate policy and treaty negotiations around the world — has been flatly refuted by hard evidence. To repair to Karl Popper, the precise theory of the climate alarmists has been falsified by factual data — and must now be modified or abandoned, which is what happens to most theories. The “chaos theory” trend of 20 years ago was right after all — we don’t know everything, in particular where the climate is concerned. The planet may be warming — but there are far too many potential causes for us to really understand what is happening, or to predict what will happen in coming decades. Much more will doubtless be written about this — and heard, in congressional testimony — as folks start to realize just how deeply these new data undermine the claims of the climate alarmists. 

  But this is hopefully the beginning of the end of the Democrats’ demented fascination with imposing devastating burdens on the American economy in the service of a “scientific” consensus that is now facing death by a thousand inconvenient truths. 

The last sentence is spot on!  We can only hope that this occurs but I doubt that the progressives will go down quietly. 

Censoring the Censor

First, there was Climategate and now there is Wikipropaganda. Apparently, one of the top global alarmist gurus, William Connelly, along with other global warming alarmists had squelched dissenting science.  Wikipedia admitted that it had been hijacked by global warming alarmists so now a group of Wikipedia arbitrators have banned William Connelly from participating in any discussion, article, or forum dealing with global warming. "They also banned other posters who had turned Wikipedia into their global warming propaganda outlet."


"Mr. Connolley is a former Green Party candidate for local political office and until 2007 was a climate modeler for the British Antarctic Survey. He is also a missionary for the view that humans cause global warming, and over the years he used his power as an "administrator" on Wikipedia to rewrite the site's global warming articles. He celebrated such controversial scientists as Penn State's Michael Mann, of Climategate fame, and he presented even disputed global warming science as fact. He routinely deleted entries that presented competing views and barred contributors with whom he disagreed. He also smeared scientific skeptics by rewriting their online biographies."

Since Connolley and other global warming alarmists used their positions to enlist a one-sided campaign to exclude differing evidentiary science or publications by dissenters I agree with the decision made by seven dispute arbitrators to ban Connolley and other global warming alarmists from participating in any forums or discussions on global warming.