Dear NASA, do scientists agree on climate change?

[gtopa1]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.

I assume that you will support that contention with facts. link!!

Greg

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think there was ever a survey taken on that because that was before the right wing decided that science was evil. However, There is no reason to believe there ever has been 100% agreement on anything.

Well this one doesn't go into the '80s, but 42 out of 49 papers predicting global warming rather than cooling seems to indicate that someone has done a lot of swallowing to come to the opposite conclusion...

Mainstream Media

http://www.skepticalscience.com

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
​

I wasn't aware of the breakdown of how many actually believed it was getting cooler, even though I remember hearing something about it back then. I do know that Sweetnam's effort to compare the amount of scientist who believed in cooling back then to the amount who believe in warming now just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I don't have time tonight, but I'll dig up the open letter that 13 of NASA's senior scientists

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. The press release also links the NASA group to his website, "co2isgreen", which also has an extensive history of receiving fossil fuel industry funding.

This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science.​

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.

I assume that you will support that contention with facts. link!!

Greg

Sure. Time, Newsweek, the media and academia were chock full of facts supporting global cooling and the holocaust that awaited mankind if we denied it.
It looked like this:

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't have time tonight, but I'll dig up the open letter that 13 of NASA's senior scientists

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. The press release also links the NASA group to his website, "co2isgreen", which also has an extensive history of receiving fossil fuel industry funding.

This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science.​

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.

I assume that you will support that contention with facts. link!!

Greg

Sure. Time, Newsweek, the media and academia were chock full of facts supporting global cooling and the holocaust that awaited mankind if we denied it.
It looked like this:

View attachment 36022

The media certainly presented the sensational idea, but your claim that academia did is crap. Didn't you see cnm's post?

 

[gtopa1]

I don't think there was ever a survey taken on that because that was before the right wing decided that science was evil. However, There is no reason to believe there ever has been 100% agreement on anything.

Well this one doesn't go into the '80s, but 42 out of 49 papers predicting global warming rather than cooling seems to indicate that someone has done a lot of swallowing to come to the opposite conclusion...

Mainstream Media

http://www.skepticalscience.com

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
​

That 97% bullshit again!!!

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

marchy: I've told you; you will get your hands dirty if you keep dabbling in this shit!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

It is remarkable that so many scientists stick to their ethics, even with the nearly limitless riches available for the petroleum industry stooges.

Gov has far deeper pockets.

Greg

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Follow the money.

 

[gtopa1]

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

A good summary here. I was definitely told by my lecturers that the earth was cooling and the next big event was another ice-age similar to the 18th Century...if not worse.



It sounded wrong then as it sounds wrong now!!

Greg

 

[BULLDOG]

Follow the money.

I've asked this question many times, and never received an answer. Who do you think is paying all those scientists, from all around the world, to say things they know aren't true, and what advantage do you think that mythical person might get by buying all those scientists?

 

[gtopa1]

lol. This is amusing.



1953?? Then of course it COOLED over the next twenty-five years.

Eh wot... a long period of volcanism???

Greg

 

[BULLDOG]

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

A good summary here. I was definitely told by my lecturers that the earth was cooling and the next big event was another ice-age similar to the 18th Century...if not worse.



It sounded wrong then as it sounds wrong now!!

Greg

No question that the idea of global cooling was presented. A lot of publicity doesn't mean a lot of scientists supported that belief though. Didn't you see that chart comparing how many papers were presented on that? Go back and look at post# 20.

 

[gtopa1]

Follow the money.

I've asked this question many times, and never received an answer. Who do you think is paying all those scientists, from all around the world, to say things they know aren't true, and what advantage do you think that mythical person might get by buying all those scientists?

Funding old bean!!

Grewg

 

[BULLDOG]

Follow the money.

I've asked this question many times, and never received an answer. Who do you think is paying all those scientists, from all around the world, to say things they know aren't true, and what advantage do you think that mythical person might get by buying all those scientists?

Funding old bean!!

Grewg

Ok. Scientists all around the world are saying the same thing. Their funding comes from thousands of different places. Are you saying all of those sources of funding are in a massive conspiracy to only fund the climate scientists who claim global warming is real, and there hasn't been even one expose from anywhere in the world to show how all those different groups, or even some of those groups have joined together in that cause? You still haven't said what they would gain by joining such a conspiracy.

 

[Agit8r]

It is remarkable that so many scientists stick to their ethics, even with the nearly limitless riches available for the petroleum industry stooges.

Gov has far deeper pockets.

Greg

Climate sceptics who gets paid what Environment The Guardian

 

[orogenicman]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

That is not true, actually. A handful of scientists suggested that the world was due for another ice age based on the milankocitch cycles, but the analyses didn't account for the rise in global temperatures. And so most scientists discounted the research.

 

[orogenicman]

And yet they are only 38 percent sure it was the warmest. Go figure.

So you think all the science NASA puts out about climate change and global warming is bunk? Is that your position?

Are they a governmental agency? National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Yes they put out a bunch of goddamn bunk.

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency

Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency
The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
Posted: 04/11/2012 1:07 pm EDT Updated: 04/12/2012 12:04 pm EDT

Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That's the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

On March 28 the group sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the agency for making unwarranted claims about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, Business Insider reported.

"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."


The group features some marquee names, including Michael F. Collins, Walter Cunningham and five other Apollo astronauts, as well as two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.

The letter included a request for NASA to refrain from mentioning CO2 as a cause of global warming in future press releases and websites. The agency's "Global Climate Change" webpage says that "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."

GRAPHIC FROM NASA WEBSITE

Of course, NASA isn't the only government agency to finger carbon dioxide as a key culprit in global warming.

The EPA website says that "Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxidein the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood." It goes on to say that "The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."

What does NASA say?

“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”

So, we are supposed to take the word of Walter Cunningham, a fine astronaut, for sure, but someone who doesn't know diddly about climatology? Same for the rest of your former NASA schmucks. Probably why none of them have taken Dr. Waleed Abdalati up on his challenge.

 

[cnm]

Sure. Time, Newsweek, the media and academia were chock full of facts supporting global cooling and the holocaust that awaited mankind if we denied it.

No, academia was not. That you swallowed a media beat up is neither here nor there.

 

[cnm]

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

A good summary here. I was definitely told by my lecturers that the earth was cooling and the next big event was another ice-age similar to the 18th Century...if not worse.

So, your lecturers were climate scientists and had published peer reviewed scientific papers? Otherwise you're just as deludedly anecdotally alarmist as TomSweetnam.

 

[cnm]

No question that the idea of global cooling was presented. A lot of publicity doesn't mean a lot of scientists supported that belief though. Didn't you see that chart comparing how many papers were presented on that? Go back and look at post# 20.

gtopa1 will not let his lying eyes overrule his [economic position].

 

[gtopa1]

It is remarkable that so many scientists stick to their ethics, even with the nearly limitless riches available for the petroleum industry stooges.

Gov has far deeper pockets.

Greg

Climate sceptics who gets paid what Environment The Guardian

THREE??? That's it?? Now can you Mann up and tell us the TOTALS paid to each?

Bullshit alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greg