How did NASA become this unreliable?

[Wyatt earp]

I'll listen to nasa far before I listen to any kook on this board. That is reality.

The same guys who fucked up a 125 million dollar Mars mission because they couldn't determine what measurement to use, metric or English?


Those guys?

CNN - NASA's metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss - September 30, 1999

One mission...


Everything else sent since has been successful. Who else outside of India, esa can say the same??? Oh'crap, their government ran programs!!!! They work well and they're not perfect! Space travel has risk but nasa kicks ass like no other. I think I'll keep riding the nasa horse as we find out more about our universe.

Most of those guys are probably 50 iq points more intelligent then you.

How old are you?

Half the missions From America , Russia and Japan has failed.. .

And what? You forgot about the challenger blowing up in 2007?

Big difference between between knowledge and wisdom Matthew, people with 50 I.Q. points more then me couldn't carry my tool belt at work.

 

[sakinago]

"How did NASA become this unreliable?"

How did most conservatives become this prone to loaded question fallacies.

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

 

[sakinago]

I'll listen to nasa far before I listen to any kook on this board. That is reality.

The same guys who fucked up a 125 million dollar Mars mission because they couldn't determine what measurement to use, metric or English?


Those guys?

CNN - NASA's metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss - September 30, 1999

One mission...


Everything else sent since has been successful. Who else outside of India, esa can say the same??? Oh'crap, their government ran programs!!!! They work well and they're not perfect! Space travel has risk but nasa kicks ass like no other. I think I'll keep riding the nasa horse as we find out more about our universe.

Most of those guys are probably 50 iq points more intelligent then you.

NASA only kicked ass with Russian made rockets, now they not doing so good with their own.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll listen to nasa far before I listen to any kook on this board. That is reality.

The same guys who fucked up a 125 million dollar Mars mission because they couldn't determine what measurement to use, metric or English?


Those guys?

CNN - NASA's metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss - September 30, 1999

One mission...


Everything else sent since has been successful. Who else outside of India, esa can say the same??? Oh'crap, their government ran programs!!!! They work well and they're not perfect! Space travel has risk but nasa kicks ass like no other. I think I'll keep riding the nasa horse as we find out more about our universe.

Most of those guys are probably 50 iq points more intelligent then you.

I worked at Kennedy SCenter for the early Shuttle preparation. My NASA counterparts were all management. My boss told me to dress like them and work the same hours as them. I tried.. Wore the bahama shirts and tees, knocked off at 4 to go surfing, but I couldn't take the slack....

ALL the actual work performed by PRIVATE CAPITALIST (gasp) contractors.. You have a very warped view of what is a money management operation.. Matt must look at those control room shots for Apollo/Shuttle and actually believe that those guys at the consoles are all NASA scientists. They are not. Not even in Pasadena for the Mars missions.. My dad, brother and I were all involved in Apollo/Shuttle. Working for 4 different contractors.

If the Saturn launch vehicles had the sponsors names on them -- it would read like the paint job on a NASCAR cup car...

 

[mamooth]

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

Well, yes.

You need to understand how the actual scientists know what they're doing, and you don't.

I don't understand string theory, or back hole topology, or many other advanced topics. However, I don't declare everything in those fields is a big fraud because of my own lack of knowledge, a crank web page and a gut feeling I have. I at least know enough to know when I don't know enough. That's one a of the big difference between rational people and deniers.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- I left KSC after 18months. My employer had lied to me about the level of technology that was going on there. Told me about all the engineering/lab resources at KSC and how I'd be really challenged. There was hardly a REAL lab anywhere in the HQ building that I worked in or anywhere in the complex. If it was required, it was set up ad hoc and then abandoned.. Work was paper studies, specs, and preparation of RFQs -- and heavy construction and material preparation.. The REAL action was where my Bro and Dad had worked in Companies like LockHeed, GE, Grumman and Rocketdyne. My office mate was an engineer with a large family ON FOOD STAMPS because NASA would come in and take the LOWEST BID for the same work year after year. And then your company would offer you the same job and desk for 10% less.. I got involved at IEEE about ENDING that practice after I left.

 

[jc456]

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

Well, yes.

You need to understand how the actual scientists know what they're doing, and you don't.

I don't understand string theory, or back hole topology, or many other advanced topics. However, I don't declare everything in those fields is a big fraud because of my own lack of knowledge, a crank web page and a gut feeling I have. I at least know enough to know when I don't know enough. That's one a of the big difference between rational people and deniers.

tooth, that is fair. The difference between you and I is that I want to know how they determine such things, so I ask questions and state that I see things differently in my observed world. So how does one get to the conclusion when observation is different? I see things logically, and when the lines don't meet I feel something is in error. I then ask for additional information. And when the response is don't worry about I'm smarter than you, then I really have my doubts on accuracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

 

[flacaltenn]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

I think the article says -- "we got what we got" -- "so don't make shit up that doesn't really exist"..

 

[jc456]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

BTW, what is it you do that it's important to you that there are global average temperatures? How does the global average affect your life where you live? Aren't you local? Aren't you concerned with your local weather? Can you explain how weather in Australia affects your life? Seems no warmer considers the US as having the need to exist. Seems to be an ongoing theme in here. So again, how does a global average temperature affect your life?

 

[frigidweirdo]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

I think the article says -- "we got what we got" -- "so don't make shit up that doesn't really exist"..

Doesn't really exist? I mean, if you're making temperature calculations, no matter what all the stuff that was said you can still see if temperatures are higher or lower. They're not saying in this article that the July wasn't the hottest July on record. They're saying that it might not be the hottest, it could, potentially, be the second hottest. Does it matter?

The point still remains the same. The point is that the world's average temperature is rising, many places are seeing record temperatures.

Statistics need to be read. If you can't read them then you can't use them effectively. But then again people make statistics, people misuse them to sell newspapers. People read newspapers and either blindly accept or blindly reject what they're reading.

 

[frigidweirdo]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

BTW, what is it you do that it's important to you that there are global average temperatures? How does the global average affect your life where you live? Aren't you local? Aren't you concerned with your local weather? Can you explain how weather in Australia affects your life? Seems no warmer considers the US as having the need to exist. Seems to be an ongoing theme in here. So again, how does a global average temperature affect your life?

How does the global average temperature affect me?

Well if the global temperature is going up, it'll mean that where I live will get hotter. This summer has actually been cooler than previous summers, that might be because I'm in a different place so it's hard to compare what I didn't experience, but the temperature charts suggest where I am it's a bit cooler, but still damn hot.

Where I used to live in the 1980s we had tons of snow. The 1990s were devoid of snow almost entirely.

Where I live now it's much warmer and doesn't really snow at all. But it might mean more rain, or less rain, or a change in weather patterns. Weather isn't so much an issue here. But in coastal areas it could cause more problems, in dry areas it could cause problems, it could cause problems in many, many different places.

 

[jc456]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

BTW, what is it you do that it's important to you that there are global average temperatures? How does the global average affect your life where you live? Aren't you local? Aren't you concerned with your local weather? Can you explain how weather in Australia affects your life? Seems no warmer considers the US as having the need to exist. Seems to be an ongoing theme in here. So again, how does a global average temperature affect your life?

How does the global average temperature affect me?

Well if the global temperature is going up, it'll mean that where I live will get hotter. This summer has actually been cooler than previous summers, that might be because I'm in a different place so it's hard to compare what I didn't experience, but the temperature charts suggest where I am it's a bit cooler, but still damn hot.

Where I used to live in the 1980s we had tons of snow. The 1990s were devoid of snow almost entirely.

Where I live now it's much warmer and doesn't really snow at all. But it might mean more rain, or less rain, or a change in weather patterns. Weather isn't so much an issue here. But in coastal areas it could cause more problems, in dry areas it could cause problems, it could cause problems in many, many different places.

really, that's what that means. dude have you been swindled. Do you ever go check your local weather or temperature history and see? I do, I live in Chicago, go check it out if it were to get warmer would be a flippin blessing. It isn't though. How is it you feel that's important anyway? What are you expecting to happen if the temperature for a day was a degree warmer?

BTW, where did you live in the 90s that became void of snow? Florida?

 

[flacaltenn]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

The article essentially says "we can never have something precise, so we should never do anything"

I think the article says -- "we got what we got" -- "so don't make shit up that doesn't really exist"..

Doesn't really exist? I mean, if you're making temperature calculations, no matter what all the stuff that was said you can still see if temperatures are higher or lower. They're not saying in this article that the July wasn't the hottest July on record. They're saying that it might not be the hottest, it could, potentially, be the second hottest. Does it matter?

The point still remains the same. The point is that the world's average temperature is rising, many places are seeing record temperatures.

Statistics need to be read. If you can't read them then you can't use them effectively. But then again people make statistics, people misuse them to sell newspapers. People read newspapers and either blindly accept or blindly reject what they're reading.

All dat true FW -- BUT --- there are well known tests for whether data is statistically SIGNIFICANT. And the related specs for native accuracy of the measuring system and the known "noise" that accompanies it.. Your talking about a global network of 100,000 surface based thermometers with sometime 100s of milles of GAP between them that must be spatially homogenized (invent data to fill in most of Africa for instance).. So do you THINK that 0.05deg in the result is significant??

So if all your "unprecendented" records are based 0.05deg -- you also have the HISTORICAL record going back to 1880 or so. This record has been cooked and fricasse'd monthly by GISS and Hadley to the tune of corrections over 0.2degC or so up or down..

This isn't just a nihilist attitude about "we can't measure temperature on a Global scale" -- its just a realization that there are limitations to the accuracy and significance of INTERPRETING that data and making outrageous claims..

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact -- when you make the claim that July is the hottest July in 140 years by 0.02degC -- you are SUPPOSED to give a confidence factor to go along with that silly declaration.. And in the past -- after making the big press splash with this scary news -- NASA would then state 2 weeks later that "we only had about a 30% confidence that the statement was true".. Actually happens.. Multiple times...

And the ONLY reason they could claim 140 years -- is that they PUSHED DOWN the temperatures in the 40s by over 0.1deg to MAKE that claim... Actually quite a sickening display of fucking with science and honesty.... Especially when you are the part of NASA named Goddard Institute for Space Sciences and you IGNORE the space science version of the temperature readings.

 

[Wyatt earp]

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

Well, yes.

You need to understand how the actual scientists know what they're doing, and you don't.

I don't understand string theory, or back hole topology, or many other advanced topics. However, I don't declare everything in those fields is a big fraud because of my own lack of knowledge, a crank web page and a gut feeling I have. I at least know enough to know when I don't know enough. That's one a of the big difference between rational people and deniers.

They don't make string theory or Blake holes political, it doesn't affect my pocket book directly or my job.

Rational people don't look at scientist as high priest. BTW

 

[Rotagilla]

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

Well, yes.

You need to understand how the actual scientists know what they're doing, and you don't.

I don't understand string theory, or back hole topology, or many other advanced topics. However, I don't declare everything in those fields is a big fraud because of my own lack of knowledge, a crank web page and a gut feeling I have. I at least know enough to know when I don't know enough. That's one a of the big difference between rational people and deniers.

They don't make string theory or Blake holes political, it doesn't affect my pocket book directly.

Rational people don't look at scientist as high priest.

"scientists" used to "think" the earth was flat...they used to "think" the sun revolved around the earth...they used to "think" man couldn't fly in heavier than air vehicles...

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

Well, yes.

You need to understand how the actual scientists know what they're doing, and you don't.

I don't understand string theory, or back hole topology, or many other advanced topics. However, I don't declare everything in those fields is a big fraud because of my own lack of knowledge, a crank web page and a gut feeling I have. I at least know enough to know when I don't know enough. That's one a of the big difference between rational people and deniers.

They don't make string theory or Blake holes political, it doesn't affect my pocket book directly.

Rational people don't look at scientist as high priest.

"scientists" used to "think" the earth was flat...they used to "think" the sun revolved around the earth...they used to "think" man couldn't fly in heavier than air vehicles...

So, your meme is that scientists really don't know nothin' anyways. As you type on a home computer to post on the internet. And don't even see the irony. Are you a bit on the retarded side?

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

Well, yes.

You need to understand how the actual scientists know what they're doing, and you don't.

I don't understand string theory, or back hole topology, or many other advanced topics. However, I don't declare everything in those fields is a big fraud because of my own lack of knowledge, a crank web page and a gut feeling I have. I at least know enough to know when I don't know enough. That's one a of the big difference between rational people and deniers.

They don't make string theory or Blake holes political, it doesn't affect my pocket book directly or my job.

Rational people don't look at scientist as high priest. BTW

So, you will only believe the evidence that scientists present if it does not interfere with your pre-conceived notions, or political theories.

No, rational people do not look at scientists as high priests. They operate in a totally differant manner. Priests demand faith. Scientist demand evidence. And they present the evidence in the articles they write on the various disciplines. But people like you never bother to read the articles and refuse to learn enough basic science to even make valid judgments on what is presented. Instead, you listen to obese junkies on the AM radio present bullshit, which you swallow hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Wyatt earp]

NASA could say, with only 38% certainty, that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Does that sound reliable?

Well, yes.

You need to understand how the actual scientists know what they're doing, and you don't.

I don't understand string theory, or back hole topology, or many other advanced topics. However, I don't declare everything in those fields is a big fraud because of my own lack of knowledge, a crank web page and a gut feeling I have. I at least know enough to know when I don't know enough. That's one a of the big difference between rational people and deniers.

They don't make string theory or Blake holes political, it doesn't affect my pocket book directly or my job.

Rational people don't look at scientist as high priest. BTW

So, you will only believe the evidence that scientists present if it does not interfere with your pre-conceived notions, or political theories.

No, rational people do not look at scientists as high priests. They operate in a totally differant manner. Priests demand faith. Scientist demand evidence. And they present the evidence in the articles they write on the various disciplines. But people like you never bother to read the articles and refuse to learn enough basic science to even make valid judgments on what is presented. Instead, you listen to obese junkies on the AM radio present bullshit, which you swallow hook, line, and sinker.

Still don't think I don't go outside and have not graduated from the 2nd grade when they talked about.... Ice ages and stuff?

Again I am 50 years old been hearing the fear mongering since 1975, 10 years before the talking heads were allowed to talk on AM radio.

Again I have been using SPC and temperature instruments at work for 30 years ....I know how people fudge numbers in the work place, I know how maintenance men pencil whip preventive maintenance programs...


Yes you guys regard scientist as high priest

You have "faith" in your cult of man made climate change.