Has anyone here seen or done an analysis of the new NASA data on heat trapping gasses?

[BREMPRO]

the RW and corporate media and blogs are on fire about this claiming it "blows a gaping hole in global warming alarmism" and essentially debunks global climate change.. i'm VERY SKEPTICAL of this conclusion since the article analyzing the NASA data comes from FORBES- a business journal, and the analysis for the article done by the "Heartland Institute" that looks like a "free market" RW corporate friendly think tank..and i can't find any reference to the data on the NASA site.

DUers with some knowledge and expertise on this PLEASE HELP.. I worry all the stories will just give the public an excuse to be more complacent about climate change and could become conventional "wisdom" without push back.

Questions:

1)Is this new NASA data, that allegedly suggests heat trapping gasses are allowing more heat to escape the atmosphere than UN climate change models have previously predicted, being interpreted correctly?

2)Is it a fundamental shift in understanding? or just a blip, juicy fodder being exaggerated by climate change skeptics and business/ oil interests?


Here's the article : http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Heartland's web site: http://www.heartland.org/about/

"peer reviewed" study published in journal Remote Sensing : http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

NASA web site: http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

OK on edit just saw another post here that talks about Roy Spencer, co-author of the study who is a AGW denier .. that's a relief to hear that its not serious scholarship.. but it's all over the media and being taken seriously- that's ALARMING...

[Speck Tater]

1. This is from the same people who "blew gaping holes" in the connection between smoking and cancer.

It's a bunch of propagandists for hire who will say whatever the highest bidder tells them to say. Their sole purpose in life is to profit by sowing confusion and doubt among the masses. Nobody in the scientific community pays any attention whatsoever to them. They are the worst kind of crackpots.

[BREMPRO]

2. that was my suspicision but what is the NASA data they are referring to?

does it actually exist?

someone needs to get out there with to debunk this article... has NASA commented on it?

[Speck Tater]

5. See post #3 for the complete debunking of this bunk. nt

[saras]

6. NASA has real things to do, and too little money

They don't have money or resources to comment on every crackpot who quotes some portion of the humongous mound of data that they produce - it would be like holding the Oxford English Dictionary responsible for every misspeller.

Whether the data exist and whether it is legitimate to draw these conclusions from the data are two nearly completely unrelated questions.

[bananas]

3. Joe Romm: "Climate Scienists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer"

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

[BREMPRO]

7. thanks! that about covers it. I wish articles about studies by known crackpot shill hacks

would be given more scrutiny before being published in national media publications and websites.. they should at the very least be least qualified, rather than appearing as fact (and in this case call NASA to find out their opinion since their data is being cited ).. it's bad journalism, and pure paid advocacy propaganda masquerading as science.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BREMPRO]

8. You are completely wrong.. i was just asking because I just read the article

and was very alarmed by it...It mentioned NASA data so I thought it was new info-somthing i haden't seen. i didn't know anything about the Heartland Institute or Spencer and thought it was a serious study and wanted to know if anyone here knew anything about it as it concerned me it was getting mainstream news attention. Got my answers quickly and thankfully learned it's clearly junk science from knowlegable and thoughtful DUers.. I provided the links simply to source my questions.

not a troll my friend, please don't jump to conclusions.. it's not becoming of a respectful member here.