Originally Posted by Tyhpoon650
I'll just leave this here. You know, for those who browbeat everyone with their interpretation of "science" and the "OMG greenhouse, we're gonna die" worshippers/guilt ridden baby boomers:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
You'd probably be well advised to check the facts on that (and in particular look at what the Heartland Institute does) before you go cutting and pasting things which purport to blow "gaping holes" in decades of genuine scientific research.
One of the common problems we see with "fake" sceptics, ie people who think they're genuine sceptics but actually haven't studied the real scientific research like a serious sceptic would, is that they're prone to latching onto things which confirm their political bias but don't stand on any solid scientific ground.
Genuine scientists with many years of qualifications and research showed that the paper you highlighted was seriously flawed after it was published. So much so that the editor of the journal was so embarrassed that he subsequently resigned. Naturally this was all part of the global scientific conspiracy to those who are that way inclined.
The paper you link to has been variously described as "garbage" and numerous other things. Far from just calling it names, other scientists have demonstrated very fundamental errors in the paper. For example, the "climate model" used by the sceptics hero Dr Roy Spencer has been shown to be grossly over-simplified. Also he was shown to use variable values in his formulae which had no resemblance to earthly reality. It was shown to be badly flawed on both a scientific basis, and a mathematical basis.
I don't mean this as an insult, but if you want to consider yourself as a sceptic, you should at least understand the details of what you're looking at.