Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?

posted at 1:50 pm on July 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Two stories have dropped that may blow big holes in the anthropogenic global warming argument — one of which is literally sky-high.  Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated.  In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxidetrap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

It should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a longtime AGW skeptic, but that doesn’t negate the NASA readings on which this study’s conclusions are based.  If heat is escaping into the atmosphere at much higher rates than AGW computer models predict, then the outcome of AGW models will be highly biased towards the catastrophic outcomes.  The problem, as Spencer notes in the press release, is that AGW theory makes too many assumptions based on incomplete data:

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. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

That could explain why global temperatures have failed to soar over the last 20 years as predicted, too.

Spencer’s study rebuts some poor but probably sincere assumptions from AGW theorists.  Not every researcher falls into that category, however.  The AP reports today that one researcher whose work “galvanized” AGW hysteria over the fate of polar bears has suddenly been suspended as his work on that claim has come under scrutiny for potential scientific misconduct:

A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. …

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

The IG hasn’t published any conclusions about the investigation, and indeed hadn’t published that there is an investigation.  It came to light when PEER announced that it would sue to reinstate Monnett, claiming that he was being persecuted for political reasons.  That would be a rather interesting charge to make in an administration that wants to impose AGW-based policy in part on Monnett’s work.  Had the probe started during the Bush administration, it might be a little easier to believe that it was politically motivated.

AGW advocates insist that people respect the scientific consensus that we’re all going to kill Mother Earth if we don’t take radical action now to stop emissions of a natural substance into the atmosphere.  However, we don’t have consensus, and what little we do have seems less and less scientific as data emerges.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Ashley Judd hardest hit.

portlandon on July 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM

The Polar Bears were actually killed by high-pressure shockwaves created as corporate jets overflew them at low altitude.

Bishop on July 28, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Except as a food source for Eskimos, why should I care about polar bears? I really don’t care for anything that can kill and eat me.

Blake on July 28, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I can hear Nelson Muntz.

Oil Can on July 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Are you telling us that a government scientist has lied…? Shocked…

d1carter on July 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

…But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. …

Cute move, creating an organization that will go by ‘PEER’; now they can say that some piece of junk is ‘PEER reviewed’ and folks will think it means something entirely different.

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Computational Fluid Dynamics is Hard!

Chip on July 28, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Blake on July 28, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Q: What does a polar bear eat?

A: Anything it wants!

I think they’ll be fine.

CurtZHP on July 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM

An inconvenient truth for the bloviator extraordinaire, Algore.

May he ‘blow up’, screaming loudly, as all that hot air leaves him.

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Michael Moore to ‘explode’ or implode, as it might be, in 3, 2, 1…

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM

It should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a longtime AGW skeptic, but that doesn’t negate the NASA readings on which this study’s conclusions are based.

I’m okay with saying this as long as when ‘studies’ supporting ‘AGW’ are presented, we note that the author ‘is a longtime AGW believer’. Of course that rarely happens.

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Green initiative has cost the U.S. alone 20,000 jobs already.

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2011 at 2:00 PM

How did that idiot believe polar bears to drown? Don’t they know that they can swim?

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Fraud you can believe in.

ErnstBlofeld on July 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Too bad the damage has already been done. Good luck removing ethanol price supports and assorted policies that have ready made constituencies to defend them.

rob verdi on July 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

An Envirowhacko has lied??? Who does he think he is? O’Bambi??

honsy on July 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

The heat goes into space? I think we all know it will change from global warming to galactic warming.

It’s even worse than they thought….

rw on July 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Both are corpulent flatulent gasbags…

OmahaConservative on July 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

But it has been so hot the last few weeks!!

Monkeytoe on July 28, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Every problem with AGW data or misconduct by AGW scientists is in fact caused by global warming itself so get with the consensus you Neanderthal denialists.

GreenBlade on July 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I saw this comment on the polar bear hoax:

We experience regular patterns of warming and cooling. In Georgia, we call it Summer and Winter. LOL

rob verdi on July 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

has yahoo scrubbed both these stories already?

lm10001 on July 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Two things…one, the polar bear population has increased by leaps and bounds to the point they’ve become a nuisance in some areas.
Two, the researcher Monnett made an assumption with no actual proof. He assumed the bears drowned from swimming a long distance however they could just as easily been caught in open water and drowned from the storm. He was at fault but so were those who failed to question his assumption.

Deanna on July 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Ed, why no mention of the Ice Age piece I tipped with these? Just curious.

The NASA piece and the Ice age piece (we are losing sunspot activity that warms the earth, boys and girls) indicate we all may be in for some chilly temps.

dogsoldier on July 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm.

Hmmmm.. Polar bears live in a water environment, so it’s a good guess that can swim.

However, we do have a vital clue in the mystery…

Chip on July 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM

The polar bears died because they didn’t want to live in a world where the GOP wouldn’t let Obama ignore the debt ceiling.

pedestrian on July 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM

In science, you verify your hypothesis by duplicating results in a lab or recording natural observations. If you use a computer model to project the future, it is first tested by entering past data to see if the model predicts the present, which is verifiable and would be tentative confirmation of the model’s validity.

If the back-testing does not lead to current conditions, the model must be flawed in some way, and you are back to the old drawing board. It works this way in all physical sciences.

All but one, that is. In the modern “climate change science,” the failure of computer models does not preclude their use for dire predictions.

This exception is made because “climate change science” isn’t so much about the science, it’s about giving governments and environmental activists control over the economy.

It’s like the man who went to his neighbor and asked to borrow his lawnmower. “Sorry, I can’t lend it to you,” the neighbor said, “My wife is making soup tonight.”

As he turned to go home empty-handed, the man inquired, “Say, what does your wife’s soup have to do with the lawnmower?”

The neighbor explained, “Well, nothing really – but if I don’t want to lend you my lawnmower, one excuse is as good as another.”

And so it is with AGW/CC “science,” it’s not about the methodology, it’s about the results, which they’ve already determined. They just need to figure out how to reach them.

Adjoran on July 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Chip on July 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Are there more lightning strikes on land or over water? And Polar bears can swim a very long way.

dogsoldier on July 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I have no pity for the fools who made Algore a billionaire, based on this fraud.

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I guess this confirms that man-made global warming is actually man-made-up global warming. Of course, the vested interests in the scam will have all sorts of explanations refuting this information and asserting that the obvious conclusions are irrelevant. Just because the input data has been cooked by the alarmists doesn’t diminish the “scientific proof” and the “scientific consensus” that man-made-up global warming is true.

stefano1 on July 28, 2011 at 2:10 PM

High speed rail killed those poor bears. The science is settled.

Cicero43 on July 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Any regrets for the Democrats who had the bright idea of channeling NASA’s funds toward collecting “climate change” data? I think the phrase “hoisted on their own petard” is apt.

joe_doufu on July 28, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I feel for those poor alarmists. I really do. Cue up REM: Losing My Religion.

John the Libertarian on July 28, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm.

-
Key word… sounds like… after the ‘high winds, pouring rain, blowing snow, crashing waves…’
-
The bare truth is that researchers flying over head is the second leading cause of deaths among polar bears… Polar bears… are the number one cause.
-

RalphyBoy on July 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM

You do know that Mars has been warming also…and there are no Polar Bears on Mars…so don’t git so uppity…

right2bright on July 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM

The collapse of the Church of Global Warming over the past year has been an incredible thing to witness. This train of lies seemed like it would never end — and the grotesque efforts to indoctrinate school children in its fiction was particularly sickening to watch — so seeing it all come crashing down has, quite simply, been a pleasure. A real pleasure. It indicates that despite an unprecedented neo-Marxist propaganda campaign, the common sense of my fellow man won out. May that common sense continue to flourish. We’re gonna need it.

Rational Thought on July 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM

But it has been so hot the last few weeks!!

Monkeytoe on July 28, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Yes, looking forward to the change of seasons: the cool but stormy season of Climate disruption but not the bitter cold of Climate Change season.

Chip on July 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Seriously, people. At what point was I supposed to believe that a frickin’ polar bear fell asleep one night on an ice floe and woke up to find that teh global warming had melted an unswimmable distance of ice around him. Well, apparently a lot of people bought that one… the NWF runs ads about it all the time soliciting donations.

This is what ticks me off so badly about the AGW alarmists — they want it both ways. Global warming is a change of less than a degree over decades… but if it’s hotter today than it was yesterday… global warming. They’re scientists, but they apparently they think God airdropped polar bears into the Arctic one day without the built-in sense to migrate as conditions change.

saint kansas on July 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Two things…one, the polar bear population has increased by leaps and bounds to the point they’ve become a nuisance in some areas….

Deanna on July 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM

True; in some small communities in Northern Canada they have to shoot polar bears when they become addicted to the human garbage dumps. Canada also allows limited hunting of polar bears.

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2011 at 2:17 PM

The AGW nuts won’t take this seriously…because of the use of the term “alarmist”. Oh well, they won’t be convinced they have been wrong all this time very easily.

JetBoy on July 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM

after a storm.

-
Key word… sounds like… after the ‘high winds, pouring rain, blowing snow, crashing waves…’
-
The bare truth is that researchers flying over head is the second leading cause of deaths among polar bears… Polar bears… are the number one cause.
-

RalphyBoy on July 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Just remember that a great deal of the time storms are indicative of the passing of a frontal boundary between Low pressure and High pressure systems.

Most likely they had some good VFR flying weather from a high pressure system after a storm.

Chip on July 28, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Well at least no polar bears were blown into outer space. That would be terrible, think about the landing.

tarpon on July 28, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Considering that they’re finding all kinds of dinosaur fossils, and fossilized traces of moderate-climate vegetation in the Alaska tundra, I think our climate varies quite a bit all by itself.

RBMN on July 28, 2011 at 2:23 PM

The Messiah has proven to be an empty suit, the Church of Global Warming has lost credibility….where will the true believers turn next?

4Freedom on July 28, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Pelosi: “The GOP wants to kill polar bears”

faraway on July 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM

We’re so sorry, Uncle Albert….

karl9000 on July 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM

So when do the AGw tolls show up to the thread?

Sharr on July 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

We knew they were lying, all liberals lie, it’s just a matter of time before they all have their Michael Mann moment.

Speakup on July 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I had a thought about this subject Tuesday night, while watching a few Deadliest Catch episodes in a row.

One was a compilation from several seasons, named something like “Toughest Moments At Sea”.

One of the segments was about ice.

The narrator, Mike Rowe, was saying in the intro to the segment how the icepack had crept further and further south over the years these shows had been filmed, threatening to drag the buoy lines off into deeper water where the floats are dragged under and the expensive gear is lost, and that in order to prevent that the skippers end up racing the ice to retrieve their gear before it gets swallowed up, and find themselves in dangerous ice fields that can rip a steel hull open and sink you quick.

I think that’s more reliable than these phony political activists who are posing as scientists, and putting out propaganda disguised as research.

Al Gore said the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in the summer, Deadliest Catch skippers say it gets further south every winter.

Who you gonna believe?

Brian1972 on July 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

So when do the AGw tolls show up to the thread?

Sharr on July 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

That’s what’s so awesome! Most don’t even try anymore. The party is so, so over. It’s a beautiful thing.

Rational Thought on July 28, 2011 at 2:29 PM

See, this is why you shouldn’t defund NASA.

ernesto on July 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Are there more lightning strikes on land or over water? And Polar bears can swim a very long way.

dogsoldier on July 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Have you seen some of the storms that hit the Alaskan seas (Bering and Chukchi)? Deadly Catch as a few episodes that vividly show how deadly it can be for a boat; let alone a bear caught out in 30 – 50 ft waves, or crushed by moving ice.

The article doesn’t state when the observation was made, i.e. in Summer, Winter etc. It does state that the scientist made this observation:

“They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

Then the scientists go on to obfuscate the AGW claims:

“According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said “anything really” about global warming.

“It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he said.

Gleason said others put their own spin on research or observations.

At any rate, I’m glad that bit by bit the entire AGW construct is being destroyed piece by scientific piece. Sorry Oakland, all your beliefs are a myth.

AH_C on July 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

AGW theory makes too many assumptions based on incomplete data:

That never stops a ‘scientist’ when they want to come to a foregone conclusion. When the data does not fit, BEND IT!

GarandFan on July 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Adjoran: Heh. ;) My entire specialization revolves around specifically the validation of computer (simulation) models. Nice job describing validation.

Another issue with validation of the AGW models has been the overall lack of data, considering that any model ‘validated’ with data used to construct the model is by definition worthless.

Scott H on July 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I don’t know about the planet, but all the heat escaped from Southern California this year. Too many visits from Al Gore, maybe.

Actually, Roy Spencer previewed the findings of the heat-escape study nearly two years ago. Another one he was right on.

J.E. Dyer on July 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Who you gonna believe?

Brian1972 on July 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Fact-based minds…

AH_C on July 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM

See, this is why you shouldn’t defund NASA.

ernesto on July 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM

*ROFLMAO* Okay, credit where credit is due. This is one of the funniest things you’ve ever said.

Scott H on July 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM

What happened to that CERN experiment that was so explosive their director put a lid on anyone talking about it?

Fred 2 on July 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM

See, this is why you shouldn’t defund NASA.

ernesto on July 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM

I’ve never advocated defunding NASA, just the global warming propaganda and Muslim Outreach part.

Brian1972 on July 28, 2011 at 2:45 PM

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

Gosh, that is surely interesting that satellite data is refuting some of the closely held theories of the AGW crowd. It also reminds me of the curious case of the climate satellite that crashed upon takeoff a few months back…..an incident that even Rush Limbaugh was skeptical of….. Hmmmmm??!?

http://www.space.com/11024-nasa-glory-climate-satellite-launch-failure.html

http://digg.com/news/science/nasa_rocket_probably_in_ocean_after_failed_launch_global_warming_satellite_lost_424_million_mission

ted c on July 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM

The problem, as Spencer notes in the press release, is that AGW theory makes too many assumptions based on incomplete data:

they paper over their assumptions by assigning those that point out those assumptions as “deniers”…see, that was easy!

ted c on July 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

This is by NO means the first time government researchers-turned advocates have been caught planting evidence or deliberately misconstruing it:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/194/Govt_researchers_caught_planting_false_ESA_evidence.html

theCork on July 28, 2011 at 2:48 PM

However, we don’t have consensus, and what little we do have seems less and less scientific as data emerges.


insert video comment by AGW crowd….

ted c on July 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Al Gore’s booking agent hardest hit

DamnCat on July 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Quick there’s no time to lose! The earth will be doomed if we don’t do something!

And by something, I mean you sending me an envelope full of cash.

hawksruleva on July 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Pelosi: “The GOP wants to kill polar bears”

faraway on July 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM

And Christmas!

Oh wait, its the WH that is screaming that..

Chip on July 28, 2011 at 2:57 PM

See, this is why you shouldn’t Obama wants to defund NASA.

ernesto on July 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM

FIFY

psrch on July 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Enviro-Nazis will soon question the data and deem it “unreliable”.

NASA chief will be sued and family hounded by roving enviro-protesters.

Obama administration will claim satellite data “erroneous” and “faulty”.

darwin on July 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Does this mean that the dingbat leftist Prime Minister of Australia will long be longing for less carbon pollution in the food supply?

MNHawk on July 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Quick there’s no time to lose! The earth will be doomed if we don’t do something!

And by something, I mean you sending me an envelope full of cash.

hawksruleva on July 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM

heh!++

it’s funny that that is the solution to most problems.

ted c on July 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM

will no longer be longing for…

edit button needed!

MNHawk on July 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Did you know, polar bears have only been around for about 250,000 years. When the Isthmus of Panama was closed by plate tectonics about 3.5 million years ago. This changed the ocean circulation currents.

Polar bears are brown bears which moved north when it got colder, changed to white fur because it was easier to hide from seals.

Before 3.5 million years ago, it was too hot in the Arctic for their tastes. What do you think tundra is, but dead trees killed when the Boreal forests died off. Only after millions of years did it cool off enough for them.

If they go extinct, why not just make more.

Isn’t evolution grand.

tarpon on July 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM

When it’s “consensus science”, its adherents inevitably resort to using weasel words. To wit:

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water.
Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

ya2daup on July 28, 2011 at 3:04 PM

The Polar Bears were actually killed by high-pressure shockwaves created as corporate jets overflew them at low altitude.

Bishop on July 28, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Ha! It must be Republicans fault somehow, right?

KeepOhioRed on July 28, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Polar bears eat seals. Seals hang out on ice flows. Polar bears can swim up to 60 miles in a day hunting seals. Hunting seals on ice flows.

Sammy316 on July 28, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Palin was right again!? Gosh, she is right so many times that I can’t keep up with the count.

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Palin was right again!? Gosh, she is right so many times that I can’t keep up with the count.

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:09 PM

*anti-Palin response team rushes in*

She’s a quitter and her poll numbers are bad !1!!1!1!!1!!

darwin on July 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Polar bears are brown bears which moved north when it got colder, changed to white fur because it was easier to hide from seals.

That first white mutation/variant probably got laid a lot…

karl9000 on July 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Palin was right again!? Gosh, she is right so many times that I can’t keep up with the count.

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:09 PM

The name has been invoked.

Sound the Horn.

portlandon on July 28, 2011 at 3:15 PM

I read this earlier today. It completely destroys the entire thesis of AGW/ClimateChange/AlgoreDisease.

The entire bogus theory was based not on the direct capture of heat by excess CO2, but by the heat trapped by H2O which was theorized to be increased by excess CO2.

This data directly contradicts the theory at a level that cannot be controverted. Unlike mean temperature records which know can be and were fudged, this data cannot be faked or explained or “adjusted” away. It is the smoking gun, red handed proof that nature does not behave the way the alarmists have claimed it does.

MJBrutus on July 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Palin was right again!? Gosh, she is right so many times that I can’t keep up with the count.

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:09 PM

*anti-Palin response team rushes in*

She’s a quitter and her poll numbers are bad !1!!1!1!!1!!

darwin on July 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM
Ha! I like to get a rise out of them – I have a feeling
it is the only rise they get! LOL!

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM

IOW you’re trolling.

MJBrutus on July 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Have you seen some of the storms that hit the Alaskan seas (Bering and Chukchi)? Deadly Catch as a few episodes that vividly show how deadly it can be for a boat; let alone a bear caught out in 30 – 50 ft waves, or crushed by moving ice.

AH_C on July 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Haven’t see those seas, but I know how it is on a fishing boat and how treacherous the ocean can be. My grandfather captained a fishing boat with a crew of three.

dogsoldier on July 28, 2011 at 3:25 PM

The “proof is always in the pudding” as my grandmother
used to say -

State will sue over polar bear listing, Palin says

SPECIES STATUS: Unreliable data, threat to energy development cited.

By DAN JOLING
The Associated Press

Published: May 22nd, 2008 01:26 AM
Last Modified: May 22nd, 2008 10:10 AM

The State of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2008/05/22/413710/state-will-sue-over-polar-bear.html#ixzz1TQjaoxpW

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM
IOW you’re trolling.

MJBrutus on July 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM

With a really kick-@$$ deep sea rig! LOL

odat on July 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Rand Paul tweeted that he doesn’t like trolls either!!!!

@SenRandPaulSenator Rand Paul

To those referring to “Tea Party hobbits.” I’d rather be a hobbit than a troll. #WeThePeoplehttp://twitpic.com/5×6693

Amjean on July 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Governor Perry was right! Hoo rah!

MJBrutus on July 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I had this conversation with a treehugger at work today, after reading this story (this is the short version):

Me: So, the polar bears dying story was a fake, the author is under investigation.

Her: What about all the other polar bear stories, were they fake too?

Me: There were no other stories.

Her: You’re saying nobody else, all the other scientists, covered this?

Me: That’s right.

Her: Well, I still don’t believe it.

They are true believers, folks.

fossten on July 28, 2011 at 3:42 PM

That first white mutation/variant probably got laid a lot…

karl9000

RACIST!!!111!!!!!!!

todler on July 28, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE

Is it ironic that an AGW sceintist works for an agency with an acronym that cna be pronounced “bummer”?

malclave on July 28, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I had this conversation with a treehugger at work today, after reading this story (this is the short version):

Me: So, the polar bears dying story was a fake, the author is under investigation.

Her: What about all the other polar bear stories, were they fake too?

Me: There were no other stories.

Her: You’re saying nobody else, all the other scientists, covered this?

Me: That’s right.

Her: Well, I still don’t believe it.

They are true believers, folks.

fossten on July 28, 2011 at 3:42 PM

That’s when you say, “Dude, didn’t you used to be an atheist?” And then smile. And then walk away.

Rational Thought on July 28, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Oh yeah, well how do all you deniers explain this?

Oldnuke on July 28, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Oldnuke on July 28, 2011 at 4:14 PM

It’s raining bears, hallelujah!

MJBrutus on July 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Falsifiability – One of the pillars of scientific pursuits.

JohnGalt23 on July 28, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Al Gore said the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in the summer, Deadliest Catch skippers say it gets further south every winter.

This is very typical of the ‘evidence’ used to refute every major research university in the world where climate research occurs. In fact, glaciers and ice are party of a highly dynamic system that’s constantly in flux. What matters are overall trends, not singular examples.

As for polar bears, several studies have released hard date that anyone can review:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/melting-ice-forces-polar-bears-to-swim-farther-study-finds/2011/07/19/gIQAq9Q5YI_story.html

If you want more complete data on melting ice, you can find it publicly available as well:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

bayam on July 28, 2011 at 4:53 PM

JohnGalt23 on July 28, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Precisely. And the theory of AGW has been falsified. It rests on the hypothesis that increased CO2 concentrations trigger changes in H2O concentrations which in turn produce warming. Spencer puts paid to the entire edifice with empirical evidence that this is not occurring despite the increased CO2 concentrations. Science works :-)

MJBrutus on July 28, 2011 at 4:59 PM

The polar bears will drown if they are at sea and a storm comes up. Maybe we should chip in and get them the Weather Channel. The guy who took the video of the drowned bears had a $50M grant. Always follow the money.

Kissmygrits on July 28, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2