How did NASA become this unreliable?

[mamooth]

Bear, you need to understand that others aren't as corrupt and incompetent as you and your friends are. Don't project your own moral and intellectual decrepitude on to anyone else.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Evidence is not proof.. That's your problem in a nutshell..

 

[flacaltenn]

Bear, you need to understand that others aren't as corrupt and incompetent as you and your friends are. Don't project your own moral and intellectual decrepitude on to anyone else.

Says the queen of projection. Don't play poker. Your tells are way too transparent..
We're talking about an agency that COULD have retained it's hero-worshipped image and instead this renegade group of activist scientists is willing to pimp all that reputation for political goals..

There is always that statement of dozens of former NASA scientists that was written circa 1997 that criticized this circus. THOSE heroes are mad and sad about all the Muslim outreach and Global Baloney goin on there now..

 

[mamooth]

Flac, if I want to hear crazy right-wing political conspiracy theories, I can turn on FOX or read Drudge.

Now, let's discuss something interesting, the unreliability of any denier science, as revealed in this new paper, Benestad et al (2015). I know it's been discussed before, but it's such a hilarious takedown of piss poor denier "science", it needs to be mentioned over and over. They went though the 38 most famous denier papers, and pointed out the glaring flaws in each one. It's just not possible for competent and honest scientists to support denialism.

http://static-content.springer.com/esm/art:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5/MediaObjects/704_2015_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Yes, that full author list is R.E. Benestad, H.O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, S. Lewandowsky and K. Hayhoe. For being such a "failure" and "not a scientist", Cook certainly does get published a lot and referenced a lot, while the deniers get ignored. That must really sting.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's way off this topic catnip breath. And demolished in another thread..

 

[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.

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.

LOL. And when you were born, I was at least 21 years old. And have been in one form of maintenance or another for as long as you have been alive. I don't pencil whip the inspection forms, I just put down, "Hasn't changed from the last inspection" when management and the bean counters refuse to give us the time or parts to repairs the machinery with.

But maintenance people are not scientists, and most management I have met have about a second grade science education from the 1970's.

Fear mongering? Statements of what the cryosphere is doing? Statements concerning the increase in severe weather events? Call it what you want, but if you deny reality, you are a denier. Someone that refuses to see what is right in front of them. And were you on a crew I was running with that attitude, I would send you down the road.

 

[kiwiman127]

I guess no one at the Washington Times saw the documtary "The Day After Tomorrow".
Seriously, why is it that the fossil energy industry is basically the financier of the denial groups? Yeah, like I'd believe those clowns.
And who's exactly financing the warmers? Anyone who stands to gain financially?
There's a lot of dough riding on this debate. Who is fooling who?

 

[Crick]

Obviously you don't understand. The oil and coal industries are manned entirely by saints. It is the climate scientists of the world that will sell their mothers and their wives and their children for pocket change - it's THEY who conspire and lie to use about the situation. It is THEY who have falsified the mountains of evidence.

Sheesh...

 

[sakinago]

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.

No what we're saying is that much of science has become bought off today by the highest bidder, to the point where you almost can't trust it. Especially if it becomes politically driven. Fish oil has been declared negligible to brain health, breakfast is no longer the most important meal of the day, bacon is healthy, sodium doesn't have a noticeable effect on heart health, Big Bang theory looks like it's out the door, string theory could be replaced by torsion theory, chemical evolution has been bs for a while but was still being taught for a decade after, panspermia is pretty popular theory now, we have identifies habitable planets within reach of warp drives that could be coming soon.

So, when last year NASA says that 2014 hottest year ever!!! And then two weeks later says, uh we're only 30% sure of that, and no one in the media peeps up about it... How are we supposed to rely upon that? Especially when they admittedly want to regulate almost every resource to cure climate change. How am I suppose to rely 50 oceanographers who say satellites suck we do a better job in our boats, when those same satellites can look 100 light years away at stars, and just by their light wave fluctuation tell us that there are possibly habitable planets in that system. That's a ridiculous notion to me

 

[mamooth]

Obviously you don't understand. The oil and coal industries are manned entirely by saints. It is the climate scientists of the world that will sell their mothers and their wives and their children for pocket change - it's THEY who conspire and lie to use about the situation. It is THEY who have falsified the mountains of evidence.

"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies." (Scott Westerfield, twitter)

 

[IanC]

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.

Evidence is not proof.. That's your problem in a nutshell..

I concur. Two people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Even more importantly, if the conclusion is predetermined then selective choice of evidence can always be found to support it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't ever remember reading any Warming or Climate info paid for oil or billionaires that weren't straight up analysis and research.. That BEST temperature study at Berkeley was partly funded by the evil Koch brothers. And I've seen Mobil/Shell as sponsors on a NUMBER of biological impact studies on Global Warming. In fact -- the warmers throw at me all the time. Didn't see the bias.

It's equally bad if you fuck up science for ALTRUISTIC reasons. GoldiRocks won't agree to that --but it's true.
And BIG wind and BIG solar know which politicians to bribe.. Eco-frauds had this fantasy about 20 years ago that solar and wind would be made in cute little cottages in every shire..

You'll starve researching small creatures UNLESS you can make your research about how they MIGHT suffer under global warming. That's the way it is. STARVE or put forward some red meat for the sponsors..

 

[sakinago]

Obviously you don't understand. The oil and coal industries are manned entirely by saints. It is the climate scientists of the world that will sell their mothers and their wives and their children for pocket change - it's THEY who conspire and lie to use about the situation. It is THEY who have falsified the mountains of evidence.

Sheesh...

Who benefits from regulating pretty much every resource? Please answer crick

 

[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.

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.

holy crap old socks, I can't believe you continue to post such mumbo jumbo. Please post up the evidence of how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is and how it affects the pressure systems and oscillations around the globe? You have all that? These flippin genius who can't ever be perhaps wrong? Seems you own it as a religion, because s0n you have zero evidence no matter how many posts you wish to make with the word EVIDENCE in it.

 

[jc456]

Flac, if I want to hear crazy right-wing political conspiracy theories, I can turn on FOX or read Drudge.

Now, let's discuss something interesting, the unreliability of any denier science, as revealed in this new paper, Benestad et al (2015). I know it's been discussed before, but it's such a hilarious takedown of piss poor denier "science", it needs to be mentioned over and over. They went though the 38 most famous denier papers, and pointed out the glaring flaws in each one. It's just not possible for competent and honest scientists to support denialism.

http://static-content.springer.com/esm/art:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5/MediaObjects/704_2015_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Yes, that full author list is R.E. Benestad, H.O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, S. Lewandowsky and K. Hayhoe. For being such a "failure" and "not a scientist", Cook certainly does get published a lot and referenced a lot, while the deniers get ignored. That must really sting.

funny stuff, Ignored by whom? The peer 'good old boy club'? Yeah, so if I wish to be famous I get me some pals and everyone agrees on everything I write. Yep that's solid stuff.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obviously you don't understand. The oil and coal industries are manned entirely by saints. It is the climate scientists of the world that will sell their mothers and their wives and their children for pocket change - it's THEY who conspire and lie to use about the situation. It is THEY who have falsified the mountains of evidence.

Sheesh...

Who benefits from regulating pretty much every resource? Please answer crick

Who benefits by not regulating and allowing our air and rivers to become like china's?

 

[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.

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.

LOL. And when you were born, I was at least 21 years old. And have been in one form of maintenance or another for as long as you have been alive. I don't pencil whip the inspection forms, I just put down, "Hasn't changed from the last inspection" when management and the bean counters refuse to give us the time or parts to repairs the machinery with.

But maintenance people are not scientists, and most management I have met have about a second grade science education from the 1970's.

Fear mongering? Statements of what the cryosphere is doing? Statements concerning the increase in severe weather events? Call it what you want, but if you deny reality, you are a denier. Someone that refuses to see what is right in front of them. And were you on a crew I was running with that attitude, I would send you down the road.

oh the old I'm older therefore smarter than you ploy!!!!

S0n, you have no proof of anything. Anything you see right in front of you is local shit only. So tell me how have things changed in your local area since you were 21 years old? Me, The early 80s were identical to the last two years here in Chicago! I'm confident your weather hasn't changed in that timeframe either. Well, isn't that right in front of you?

 

[jc456]

Obviously you don't understand. The oil and coal industries are manned entirely by saints. It is the climate scientists of the world that will sell their mothers and their wives and their children for pocket change - it's THEY who conspire and lie to use about the situation. It is THEY who have falsified the mountains of evidence.

Sheesh...

Who benefits from regulating pretty much every resource? Please answer crick

Who benefits by not regulating and allowing our air and rivers to become like china's?

it's been done, done many, many years ago. What is it that is currently at issue with you that you feel the need for more?

 

[jc456]

I guess no one at the Washington Times saw the documtary "The Day After Tomorrow".
Seriously, why is it that the fossil energy industry is basically the financier of the denial groups? Yeah, like I'd believe those clowns.
And who's exactly financing the warmers? Anyone who stands to gain financially?
There's a lot of dough riding on this debate. Who is fooling who?

So what's easier to get, the money from the tax payer or the money from private funds? If you want tax money you must provide results that correlate to the grant. What's any different? You all are truly clueless individuals.

And....you crack me up everyday.

 

[sakinago]

Obviously you don't understand. The oil and coal industries are manned entirely by saints. It is the climate scientists of the world that will sell their mothers and their wives and their children for pocket change - it's THEY who conspire and lie to use about the situation. It is THEY who have falsified the mountains of evidence.

Sheesh...

Who benefits from regulating pretty much every resource? Please answer crick

Who benefits by not regulating and allowing our air and rivers to become like china's?

Nice deflection to straw man. I don't want all regulation gone, I do want it cut back in many areas, and I definitely do not the govt keeping track of how much water, power, oil, etc. I use and taxing me or limiting the amount. I also don't want them to tell me how to heat, cool, power etc. my house. This is what our climate "scientist" (sponsored by those in power) want for us... Pretty undeniably

So... Who benifits from all that extra and extraneous regulation?