In the first episode of the Dilbert television series the Boss explains why Dilbert and his employees must invent a new product; a process that leads Dilbert to a lot of trouble and anxiety. The conversation goes as thus:
Boss: Well, troops, I assume you've all been informed on the problems with our flagship product.
Everyone: *various replies in the negative*
Boss: Well, there's no point in killing a dead horse.
Dilbert: You mean 'there's no point in beating a dead horse.'
Boss: Why would anyone beat a dead horse?
Dilbert: Why would anyone kill a dead horse?
Boss: Maybe it'd kick you.
Dilbert: It's dead!
Boss: And so is every customer who used our flagship product.
This subject of there being no climate change/global warming (hide the decline) seems to me like killing a dead horse. The horse is already dead: all the evidence has already obliterated the alarmist climate predictions, and yet, again and again, I as well as others must slay this already slain horse and present even more evidence that there is no climate change.
A new NASA study from 2000 to 2011 has shown that the upper atmosphere is letting "far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted."
Dr. Roy Spencer and his team have discovered that "real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models," and that "increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."
Just like with extinction rates and probably everything else in the universe, actual data trumps assumptions these "scientists" of today are putting into their computer models. You would think "scientists" would know a thing or two about empiricism by now, but instead they keep relying on those damn models. The value of a model is organizing data after the fact so it can be better understood in a greater context, not substituting for data.
James Taylor writing for Forbs comments, "The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate. ¶Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much")."
He ends with the following statement (that I am in total agreement on):
"When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are."