sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering." NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World
Obama turned NASA into a Muslim outreach department and put them in charge of perpetrating the AGW Fraud
What's reliable about the Washington Times? They just repeat denialist propaganda and obscure the real reasons for why AGW is happening.
The Moonie Times is now a go-to source for science info for the right. That's what to take away from this thread. Rev. Moon's cult tells 'em what to think.
It's also funny to watch the cultists claim NASA isn't accurate, right after NASA flies a spacecraft past Pluto.
I know right. If you have qualms with what the article says, then by all means list them. Is anything they said untrue?The Moonie Times is now a go-to source for science info for the right. That's what to take away from this thread. Rev. Moon's cult tells 'em what to think.
It's also funny to watch the cultists claim NASA isn't accurate, right after NASA flies a spacecraft past Pluto.
^ Didn't bother reading the article, reflexively spouts AGWCult rhetoric
I know right. If you have qualms with what the article says, then by all means list them. Is anything they said untrue?The Moonie Times is now a go-to source for science info for the right. That's what to take away from this thread. Rev. Moon's cult tells 'em what to think.
It's also funny to watch the cultists claim NASA isn't accurate, right after NASA flies a spacecraft past Pluto.
^ Didn't bother reading the article, reflexively spouts AGWCult rhetoric
The Moonie Times is now a go-to source for science info for the right. That's what to take away from this thread. Rev. Moon's cult tells 'em what to think.
It's also funny to watch the cultists claim NASA isn't accurate, right after NASA flies a spacecraft past Pluto.
It's amazing to me that NASA can can make a seemingly perfect circle for a satellite gyroscope, put it into space, and essentially prove Einstein's gen relativity. A perfect circle is basically impossible to make, and was a very very tedious process... But when it comes to reading ocean temperatures, they go with readings from sensors 750 miles away from each other, despite having access to tons of satellites that are already reading temps. Sounds pretty crazy to meThe Moonie Times is now a go-to source for science info for the right. That's what to take away from this thread. Rev. Moon's cult tells 'em what to think.
It's also funny to watch the cultists claim NASA isn't accurate, right after NASA flies a spacecraft past Pluto.
What's reliable about the Washington Times? They just repeat denialist propaganda and obscure the real reasons for why AGW is happening.
13 Misconceptions About Global Warming
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
I know right. If you have qualms with what the article says, then by all means list them. Is anything they said untrue?
Um no it's not my responsibility to refute what I post. If you have a problem with what I post, then it's your responsibility to go after the legs I'm placing the case on. Which should be easy for you since your party claims us "deniers" are equivalent to flat earth theorist. So far, you've attacked the credibility of the author, claimed his stats are untrue without countering with other stats, and told us it's good practice in stats to ignore the margin of error.I know right. If you have qualms with what the article says, then by all means list them. Is anything they said untrue?
First, tossing up a link and saying "refute this!" is a crap tactic. It's your job to support your case.
And second, most of that link was garbage.
For example, they said that the record high was within the uncertainty, which makes it meaningless. Anyone saying such a stupid thing has no grasp of basic statistics. And every scientist understands just how badly the deniers are failing at statistics.
Their 750 mile claim was just a weird fantasy. Nobody really has any idea what they're babbling about.
And saying "There's no such thing as an average global temperature" is just a pathetic deflection. If they pretend there's not global average, they don't have to acknowledge that the global average keeps going up.
Tom Harris, the author, is a mechanical engineer with zero experience in climate science, and who draws his salary from various conservative think tanks. His previous history includes being a paid shill for the tobacco industry. That example is quite common. Many of the people who got paid to lie and say smoking was harmless have moved on to getting paid to lie and say there's no global warming. And amazingly, some people fall for it.
No sensible person uses the bad satellite data when the far superior surface data is available. Satellite data doesn't even measure temperature, and has to be arbitrarily twiddled, fudged and adjusted to convert it to a temperature. In contrast, using the surface data is very straightforward. Plus, the satellite data measures the mid-atmosphere, while the surface data measures the surface. Which is where we live, so it's what we care about.
Remember, the adjustments to the surface data make the warming look _smaller_. Amazingly, almost every denier pretends the exact opposite. Most of them have just been brainwashed by their cult into believing the opposite of reality, but their leaders are lying deliberately. There's no socialist conspiracy; the scientists simply know all the data contradicts the bullshit denier claims. The denier rank and file themselves should take their leaders to task and demand to know why they've been lying to everyone about the temperature adjustments. But they won't. Like an abused spouse, they'll just run back for more abuse.
I'll listen to nasa far before I listen to any kook on this board. That is reality.
Oh and you sate that satellites (even though they're good at measure temp on other planets, sun, light frequencies from stars 100s of light years away)...are not good at reading surface temps on earth. I guess infrared thermometers are s**t techI know right. If you have qualms with what the article says, then by all means list them. Is anything they said untrue?
First, tossing up a link and saying "refute this!" is a crap tactic. It's your job to support your case.
And second, most of that link was garbage.
For example, they said that the record high was within the uncertainty, which makes it meaningless. Anyone saying such a stupid thing has no grasp of basic statistics. And every scientist understands just how badly the deniers are failing at statistics.
Their 750 mile claim was just a weird fantasy. Nobody really has any idea what they're babbling about.
And saying "There's no such thing as an average global temperature" is just a pathetic deflection. If they pretend there's not global average, they don't have to acknowledge that the global average keeps going up.
Tom Harris, the author, is a mechanical engineer with zero experience in climate science, and who draws his salary from various conservative think tanks. His previous history includes being a paid shill for the tobacco industry. That example is quite common. Many of the people who got paid to lie and say smoking was harmless have moved on to getting paid to lie and say there's no global warming. And amazingly, some people fall for it.
No sensible person uses the bad satellite data when the far superior surface data is available. Satellite data doesn't even measure temperature, and has to be arbitrarily twiddled, fudged and adjusted to convert it to a temperature. In contrast, using the surface data is very straightforward. Plus, the satellite data measures the mid-atmosphere, while the surface data measures the surface. Which is where we live, so it's what we care about.
Remember, the adjustments to the surface data make the warming look _smaller_. Amazingly, almost every denier pretends the exact opposite. Most of them have just been brainwashed by their cult into believing the opposite of reality, but their leaders are lying deliberately. There's no socialist conspiracy; the scientists simply know all the data contradicts the bullshit denier claims. The denier rank and file themselves should take their leaders to task and demand to know why they've been lying to everyone about the temperature adjustments. But they won't. Like an abused spouse, they'll just run back for more abuse.
I pointed out that same thing and USMB right wingers laughed and laughed. They said how hard could it be?The Moonie Times is now a go-to source for science info for the right. That's what to take away from this thread. Rev. Moon's cult tells 'em what to think.
It's also funny to watch the cultists claim NASA isn't accurate, right after NASA flies a spacecraft past Pluto.
Sounds like a loony tweet ^NASA, like pretty much all aspects of the Federal Government, has been infested by disease minded liberals with an anti-American agenda.