Dear NASA, do scientists agree on climate change?

[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.

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

Most were Science lecturers of the Old school; others were from the Environmental sciences...and were bloody crackpots!! YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

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.

WRONG...global cooling in the 70s was the "next big thing".....and it was all America's fault of course!!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

This is where the 38% certainty comes from:

Nasa climate scientists We said 2014 was the warmest but we re only 38 sure Daily Mail Online

But the NASA graph is a corrected data set...with the 1930s "corrected" downwards along with the US figures. This is a tad concerning as the US dataset is of course the most reliable. So why adjust it down??

NOAA NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 Real Science



Greg

 

[gtopa1]

US heatwave index:

Looks a lot like the 30s were the nastiest to me!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

This is also interesting!!

ICECAP

BILLIONS to the Renewable energy serfs!!!

Greg

 

[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.

Most were Science lecturers of the Old school; others were from the Environmental sciences...and were bloody crackpots!! YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY!!

Greg

You've shown yourself to be completely untrustworthy in regard to climate science, abandoning rationality in favour of an economic position, I don't believe an assertion of yours you don't back up with a cite.

 

[cnm]

WRONG...global cooling in the 70s was the "next big thing".....and it was all America's fault of course!!!

Yeah, right. That's why 42 out of 49 papers predicted warming. Which you ignore.

Not to mention that you've also said global warming just doesn't seem right and that's why you don't accept it. That's okay, I understand nothing's as precious as prejudice, except for a hole in the ground.

 

[gtopa1]

nm

WRONG...global cooling in the 70s was the "next big thing".....and it was all America's fault of course!!!

Yeah, right. That's why 42 out of 49 papers predicted warming. Which you ignore.

Not to mention that you've also said global warming just doesn't seem right and that's why you don't accept it. That's okay, I understand nothing's as precious as prejudice, except for a hole in the ground.

That you mis-represent is dishonest!!

Greg

 

[cnm]

That you find your own positions ridiculous is progress I guess.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's review: Chinese scientists demonstrated that the AGWCult models are 100% wrong, the AGWCult been caught fudging the data so many times that all their reported data must be suspect, they intimidate, harass and threaten any scientists who dares to questions their "Consensus" and they've never once demonstrated how their absurd theory is supposed to work. Nevertheless, they are paid to soldier on

 

[Steven_R]

I don't think it's a question of whether or not scientists believe climate is changing. It does and always has and always will. Climate simply isn't static. We've had periods of history when the entire Earth was tropical (and 30 or so degrees hotter than now) and periods where the entire planet was icebound (see also: Snowball Earth) and humans weren't a part of the equation. The question is just how much of the current climate change is natural and how much (if any) is anthropogenic in nature. How much is solar, how much if just the nature of the carbon cycle, how much is air and water current related, how much is due to outgassing and volcanism, how much is a function of plant life to land area, so on and so forth?

The next question is what can humans do to stop our contribution AND maintain our standards of living? We're not giving up cars, electricity, manufacturing, and extracting resources, so what is the solution? Coal, oil, and gas fired power is bad, solar and wind are destructive (and inefficient) and nobody wants nuclear because of scaremongering. Even if some solution is agreed upon, it would be decades before there is some widespread implementation. So now what? And that's before we even get into the politics of climate change and how some see it as an opportunity to raise taxes and/or exert more control over economies.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Now Sweetie Pie, that lie has been debunked so many times. The majority of scientific papers that addressed that issue at that time stated that they expected warming.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?

RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course it's bullshit. I remember Bammy's first year in office...

We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

Tom Sweetnam
We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

gtopa1

Is it your position that the NASA science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let's review: Chinese scientists demonstrated that the AGWCult models are 100% wrong, the AGWCult been caught fudging the data so many times that all their reported data must be suspect, they intimidate, harass and threaten any scientists who dares to questions their "Consensus" and they've never once demonstrated how their absurd theory is supposed to work. Nevertheless, they are paid to soldier on

CrusaderFrank

We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't think it's a question of whether or not scientists believe climate is changing. It does and always has and always will. Climate simply isn't static. We've had periods of history when the entire Earth was tropical (and 30 or so degrees hotter than now) and periods where the entire planet was icebound (see also: Snowball Earth) and humans weren't a part of the equation. The question is just how much of the current climate change is natural and how much (if any) is anthropogenic in nature. How much is solar, how much if just the nature of the carbon cycle, how much is air and water current related, how much is due to outgassing and volcanism, how much is a function of plant life to land area, so on and so forth?

The next question is what can humans do to stop our contribution AND maintain our standards of living? We're not giving up cars, electricity, manufacturing, and extracting resources, so what is the solution? Coal, oil, and gas fired power is bad, solar and wind are destructive (and inefficient) and nobody wants nuclear because of scaremongering. Even if some solution is agreed upon, it would be decades before there is some widespread implementation. So now what? And that's before we even get into the politics of climate change and how some see it as an opportunity to raise taxes and/or exert more control over economies.

Steven_R

Speaking of NASA: Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

trying to pin down people on so simple a question is like trying to get the right wing to admit that President Obama is not a Muslim

 

[Porker]

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.

Well OK...let me think about this for a second. OK, I'm done thinking about it. I figure Walter Cunningham has more scientific training than I ever had. And I (that would be me, myself, Porker) have been more correct than any of those 97% of the scientific community THAT TOLD US HOW WE ARE GOING TO BURN THE HELL UP in the next 20 years back in 1984. We didn't and I was correct. And algore WAS WRONG.

And we all know what an expert algore is/was.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

this guy Porker can't be taken seriously

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

an honest fool

but at least he doesn't chicken out like the rest of them who won't go on record