Please feel to join the fray at Forbes.  Taylor is spining his wheels and the more people refuting him the better-- this could back fire for them big time.

Registration is easy.

http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/#comment-755

The man is a liar, plain and simple.

Please help, I can't do this alone!

I created an account, as of now it seems as though you've gotten the final word in.  I'll see what I can add, when he responds again.

I've made a contribution:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/#comment-762

Thanks Alex and Svatli !:)

You need to click on a link in your email to activate your account, you probably know that, but just in case.

The following two posts are from the comment thread to the Huffington Post article, "Climate Change And Forest Fires Linked In New Study" posted July 27.

AlbanyConservative

http://new­s.yahoo.co­m/nasa-dat­a-blow-gap­ing-hold-g­lobal-warm­ing-alarmi­sm-1923349­71.html

This report is on DRudge today. It says that almost every climate model being run is using faulty data about heat being trapped within our atmospherr­e. This is a NASA data report that should get more attention than it is.

Real-world measuremen­ts show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

I htink it is time to reprogram the computers.

BluePhantom2

Here is something about Spencer's paper and Taylors blogg:

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/global-warming-debunked-or-not

OK it seems to be going viral, but I'm not finding anything discussing potential flaws or blind spots in Spencers' study or interpretation.  Can anything authoritative be found on the web yet?

Isn't this the modus operendi with the denier crowd?  As soon as a Spencer or Lindzen paper hit the press they scream victory at the tops of their voices before clearly understanding, or sometimes even reading, the paper?  

It's another example of the "skeptics" not being skeptical.

I would be very interested to hear what Bickmore thinks of this paper once he's had time to digest it.

Citizenschallenge - there is more specific discussion on the paper in this thread.

The following was posted by Bob H (scienceguy) on the comment thread to Tundra Fires And Climate Change: More Bad News, NPR.

 So here we have a troll (James Watchman)...

…citing a committed denialist (James Taylor @ Forbes)…

…who is part of an organization with a pro-religion anti-science agenda (Heartland Institute)...

…which is funded by huge piles of right wing money (Koch brothers)…

…writing about a denialist "scientist" (Roy Spencer), who has destroyed his scientific credibility by claiming "the theory of creation" has "a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution", who is on the board of the Marshall Institute, infamous for both pro-tobacco and climate denialist disinformation campaigns…

…citing his own brand new publication not yet critiqued by the rest of the climate science community.

Why does none of this surprise me…

…and why should that one not-yet-dissected scientific opinion contradict 5 years of existing science?

So JW, who are the "brainwashed sheeple" here, the ones adhering to the Taylor/Spencer/Heartland/Marshall/Koch denialist line which the global scientific community rejects…

…or the climate scientists of the world who develop, analyze, and interpret evidence according to globally accepted scientific practices?

And you wonder why your side has no credibility with scientists?

Friday, July 29, 2011 9:11:37 AM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

"The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published. ...."

Climate change debunked? Not so fast by By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer and posted on MSNBC News.

for what it's worth here's my first salvo, considering that most of my comments have yet to make it through moderation at Forbes.com

Forbes.com, Heartland... JamesTaylor's censored discussion re. "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism"

Recently the media has gone all a twitter with the latest global warming hype. This time the headline reads Roy Spencer: “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.”

From the looks of it one James Taylor the senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News is being the PR shepherd of this latest attempt to confuse people. Over at Forbes.com Mr. Taylor has challenged all comers with a sneer. Yet thoughtful, polite if pointed posts to this blog are being lost in moderator limo. . .

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS, thanks Alex

For what it's worth I've collected and listed eight rebuttals (by date) to this study

at citizenschallenge.blogspot.com, along with my lost in moderator-limbo posts.

Well I made a few ad hominen attacks, he deserved it.
My view is that he participates to much in his own blogs comments and not in a constructive way.

ScienceDaily treated Spencer's paper as just another peer-reviewd, published paper. Click here.

Well, maybe that will galvanize the professionals to demolish it more thoroughly!