No, but the hundreds of objective scientists involved with the IPCC and the open available nature of the data give me confidence that educated people are working hard to honestly answer a real problem.

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

so what of the many scientists who disagree that global warming is a real issue??? here we have a number of nasa scientists who've posted data that debunks the computer models we'va all been told are sacred. is this new data not worthy of consideration???

One thing to point out concerning this article:

Even though it is not mentioned, the basis of the article is inline with some theory and some computer forecasts. Because of that, I am sure, without looking at actual data and research, that NASA did run tests, scans, and took photographs to test a number of concepts.

Clouds reflect solar radiation, and thereby reduce warming, while also trapping surface radiation, reflected by landmass and water. With computer models predicting increased storm activity, and with the number of hurricanes and typhoons our planets have experienced lending some validity to the forecasts, that also means periods of increased cloud cover. Not just any cloud cover, but very large, thick, and dense cloud masses - the type that solar radiation has tremendous difficulty penetrating. These usually occur in the tropics where warming from the Sun is greatest, and where solar reflection can have the greatest impact on global weather systems. This makes running such tests not only justifiable, but gives scientists a relatively unique chance to gain data on a period of high storm activity.

Tropical storms are not the only opportunity to do this however. We have experienced increased winter storms as well. Many of these storms have occurred in regions where such storms are not common. Several of the storms have been very large, some even covering a quarter to a third of the continental U.S. All of this is cloud mass that reflects heat from the sun. We've had snow in Las Vegas, England, and Jerusalem. We've had floods in Las Vegas, the midwest, France, and Belgium. The Pacific Northwest has experienced greater snowfalls too. This is all atypical weather, but how much is fueled by global warming? If it is from global warming, are these storms simply how the Earth shields itself to moderate temperatures?

And there is another factor: flooding. All that water has to go somewhere. Much of it may reach the ocean in run off, but a large portion of it evaporates to create clouds. This isn't just rainstorms, but even the tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan. Tsunamis can create landlocked pools of water which cannot drain. As the waters recede, flotsam from the destruction can even create dams which restrict drainage. In Indonesia, parts of Sumatra were still flooded for weeks after the tsunami struck. This creates large bodies of fairly stagnant water which must either be pumped out or left to evaporate on its own. So this begs the question: has some of our storm activity been triggered by large scale evaporation from massive floods?

It's all part of the puzzle when researching global weather phenomena. Volcanic eruptions, increased snowfall, and large dust storms also reflect sunlight, preventing it from warming the Earth's surface. The more sunlight that is reflected back into space, the less warming occurs here on Earth. All of these things, and possibly more, must be taken into account before determining the net impact on global temperatures, especially since greenhouses gases, in theory, do not trap all heat, but only a percentage. Much of the heat still penetrates the greenhouse layer and escapes into space, but if less heat is reaching the surface in the first place, the greenhouse effect may be negligible.

I think this is what the NASA research is trying to determine, regardless of what the article says. I haven't read the NASA info yet, but based on what I know my own reading and past research, this just seems to be the logical approach for NASA scientists to take.

Its all in who you decide to accept, believe and trust.

not so. i believe and trust nobody as regards this particular topic and accept nobody's opinion as fact. if the scientists don't all agree i'm not about to accept one side or the other as fact. i will consider any data that is put before me however.

if nothing else, this article points out the folly in our 'save the planet' strategies over the past few decades. i don't know how many billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars have been spent on such inane silliness as subsidizing corn farmers in the methonol madness for instance. when we get politicians out of the global warming 'problem' and give science free reign we just might solve any problems we may have or at least determine once and for all that there really is a problem.

i liken this crap with thes scenario:

a planet killing astroid is spotted that astronomers determins will hit earth in ten years. for the next decade world governments unit in an effort to develope a missile system that will destroy the astroid in the nick of time. influence peddling takes over, every country recognozing the potential for jobs, missle manufacturing, etc., enhancing their own ecconomies and missle sites are manufactured and placed in those countries who win the political wrestling match. all the time the notion that the big rock will hit unless the right choices are made is lost in the shuffle. afterall, if the missle shots actually work those 'winning countries' will be sitting pretty politically and economically IF the big bolder can be distroyed. then comes year ten, the asteroid appears from behind the moon only to make us come to the very fatal realization that all the missiles are pointed in the wrong direction. the human race becomes extinct just as the dinasaurs did all because politics and not science took on the task to 'solve the problem'. but hell, al gore invented the internet so he umst know what he's talking about right? right? please don't say i'm right.

here is something i found that "kind of" relates to gore...

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/232649-Corrupt-Science-Arctic-Scientist-Charles-Monnett-Under-Investigation

monnett was a base for gore's data...

Here is an excerpt from the following link. Keep in mind that Gore wrote his book using information from the '80s and early '90s. He then adapted news items into the presentation. I have not read Gore's book - I have only seen the movie. However, some of the graphs Gore used were outdated projections, and his computer forecasts are only a few out of many. Because of his limited time, he had to choose those visual effects that might have the greatest impact. In other words, Gore had to sensationalize his subject to achieve the effect he wanted. Many can vilify Al Gore for apt reasons, but one of the things he achieved was greater awareness of environmental problems. It's a double-edged sword. What isn't so readily seen is that such awareness will spur greater research, and draw new talent into the fields of science. This increases our chance of finding the truth much faster, even though we will need to suffer increased alarmism along the way.

So, why would I post something which seems anti-Gore? Because this excerpt deals with the man Al Gore named as his mentor in An Inconvenient Truth. It reveals that Revelle did not agree with some of Gore's claims. It also reveals that Gore must have known this. Therefore, I would draw your eye to the final quote in the excerpt. I believe this was Gore's true intent. It just so happens that Revelle's science was much less exciting or entertaining than Gore's presentation, but Gore may have been acting more as a recruiter than an informer.

http://www.hockel.com/gore.pdf

Regarding Gore and his “mentor,” Roger Revelle

Gore’s “global warming mentor” at Harvard did not at all share Gore’s alarmist views.
(Environment News (published by the Heartland Institute, Chicago) 3, no. 1 (January 2000): 9, or
www.sepp.org/weekwas/1999/Oct2.html)

About Roger Revelle (Gore’s “mentor”)

Gore implies that Revelle agreed with the GW hypothesis, which in not true. A great scientist and teacher at UC San
Diego, Revelle died in 1991. He started the remarkable series of measurements of atmospheric CO2 in 1957. As a
visiting professor at Harvard University, he taught a freshman course attended by then-student Al Gore. Here is what
Revelle said about global warming. It will make you less frightened.

OMNI interview

In March 1984 Omni magazine published an extensive interview with Revelle.

Omni: A problem that has occupied your attention for many years is the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere,
which could cause the Earth's climate to become warmer. Is this actually happening?

Revelle: I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has been about 21 percent. But
whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can't absolutely say.

Omni: [If it happens], what will the warming of the Earth mean to us?

Revelle: There may be lots of ef fects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants. . . . you get more plant
growth. Increasing CO2 levels also af fect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That
means plants will be able to grow in drier climates.

Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse?

Revelle: People are always saying the weather's getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper
weather extremes.

Revelle’s letters

In a July 18, 1988, letter to then-Senator Tim Wirth, Revelle cautions that "we should be careful not to arouse too
much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer. It is not yet obvious that this summer's hot
weather and drought are the result of a global climatic change or simply an example of the uncertainties of climate
variability. My own feeling is that we had better wait another ten years before making confident predictions."

Revelle had made an even stronger statement just a few days earlier, in a July 14, 1988 letter to Congressman Jim
Bates:

"Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of
'greenhouse warming.' As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these
variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another ten or twenty years
to really be convinced that the greenhouse ef fect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and
negative ways."

Revelle’s writings

In the premiere issue of Cosmos, in 1991, Revelle and coauthors S.F. Singer and C. Starr contributed a brief essay,
“What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap.” The three write:

“Drastic, precipitous and, especially,
unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs
of global poverty, without being effective.”

They continue, “Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing
countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to
delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few
who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse ef fect, has pointed out that ‘. . .
those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any
discernible analysis of the costs and benefits.’”

Revelle and his colleagues conclude, “It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so
that we will know what we are doing before we act. ‘Look before you leap’ may still be good advice.”

So what was it that Gore heard? It certainly wasn’t what he said in the movie!

The world's association of camel scientists fought back angrily over Australian plans to kill wild dromedaries on the grounds that their flatulence adds to global warming.

The idea is "false and stupid... a scientific aberration", the International Society of Camelid Research and Development (ISOCARD) said yesterday, adding the animals were being made culprits for a man-made problem.


Comment: Not even a man-made one. The whole Global Warming scam is nothing but a big farce.


"We believe that the good-hearted people and innovating nation of Australia can come up with better and smarter solutions than eradicating camels in inhumane ways," it said.

The kill-a-camel suggestion is floated in a paper distributed by Australia's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, as part of consultations for reducing the country's carbon footprint.

The scheme is the brainchild of an Adelaide-based commercial company, Northwest Carbon, a land and animal management consultancy, which proposes whacking feral camels in exchange for carbon credits.

Camels were introduced to the Outback in the 19th century to help early settlers cope with hot, arid conditions.

Now they number around 1.2 million and, say some, are a pest because of the damage they inflict to vegetation and their intestinal gases.

Each camel, according to the champions of a cull, emits 45kg of methane, the equivalent of one tonne a year in carbon dioxide (CO2), the main warming gas.

Northwest Carbon says it would shoot the camels from helicopters or corral them before sending them to an abattoir for eating by humans or pets.


Comment: And then what? Who's next in the long line of "farters" to be executed in cold blood in exchange for carbon credits?


But ISOCARD, an association of more than 300 researchers headquartered at al Ain University in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), said the calculations were absurd.

"The estimation of methane emission by camels is based on cattle data extrapolation," it said in a press release.

"The metabolic efficiency of camel is higher than that of cattle, (...) camels are able to produce 20 per cent more milk by eating 20 per cent less food, they have different digestive system and are more efficient in the utilisation of poor quality roughages," it noted.

In addition, the bacterial flora of camel intestines means their digestion is closer to that of monogastric animals, such as pigs, rather than as cattle and sheep, said ISOCARD.

"Therefore, the estimation of camel methane emission is quite debatable, as well as the estimated feral population."

The 28 million camels in the world represent less than one per cent of all vegetation-eating biomass, and their emissions are just a tiny fraction of those made by cattle, it argued.

"The feral dromedary camels should be seen as an incomparable resource in arid environments," the group said. "They can and should be exploited for food (meat and milk), skin and hides, tourism etcetera."

Australia is heavily reliant on coal-fired power and mining exports and has one of the highest per-capita carbon levels in the world.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/232816-Global-Warming-Fraud-Hits-a-New-Low-Scientists-Outraged-Over-Australia-s-Cull-Plans-For-Farting-Camels