Climate change hysteria

Last week I ranted about the Southern Baptist statement on climate change. Today I found more evidence why there is no need to talk about climate change as a human induced phenomena.

Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”

Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

There are more statements like this one in the article, but I find it fascinating that the base result of the article is this. People who fly off at the handle with minimal facts are usually found to be unintelligent. The global warming crowd hasn’t needed a lot of facts and when the facts do show up the reaction is predictable like this quote shows:

Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”

Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”

Duffy: “From what you’re saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable …”

Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”

Score one for common sense and level-headed thinking.

Categories: Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Post navigation

4 thoughts on “Climate change hysteria

  1. Agreed and the evidence is mounting as time passes.

  2. How do you rate your post now. The climate continues to not play ball and the counter evidence piles up.

  3. The heat is off and the pressing argument now is how to counter the greens.

  4. Obviously, I still stand behind what I wrote. Global warming is a hoax and not worth worrying about. The only thing that is worrisome is the actions of those who use the bad science that support global warming to control the lives of others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: