When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[skookerasbil]

 

[rdean]

Who cares about NASA? The left can prop up all the propaganda it wants from NASA or anyplace else!!! A the end of the day, nobody gives a rats ass about the science anymore. The public see's it and says, "Meh".


But dont take my word for it............from Pew Research last week................

But the nutters will keep posting up those "science" links!!!






DOMINATION

PEW says only 6% of scientists are Republican so Republicans say that proves PEW are a bunch of liars.

So what is it?

Besides, Republicans say, "Government can't create jobs". And we saw what they did under Bush. We are finally starting to recover from their disastrous policies and they want to take over the economy again. To what? Finish the job?

 

[skookerasbil]

Who cares about NASA? The left can prop up all the propaganda it wants from NASA or anyplace else!!! A the end of the day, nobody gives a rats ass about the science anymore. The public see's it and says, "Meh".


But dont take my word for it............from Pew Research last week................

But the nutters will keep posting up those "science" links!!!






DOMINATION

PEW says only 6% of scientists are Republican so Republicans say that proves PEW are a bunch of liars.

So what is it?

Besides, Republicans say, "Government can't create jobs". And we saw what they did under Bush. We are finally starting to recover from their disastrous policies and they want to take over the economy again. To what? Finish the job?

Getting the point fAiL s0n.


THE point is, nobody gives a rats ass about global warming anymore. ( as clearly evidenced by the poll)

In fact, IM still laughing thinking about the January SOTU address by the president. How many times did he talk about "climate change"?


Exactly ZERO





Oh..........and by the way asshole..........Rasmussen must be lying too because they came up with virtually the EXACT same results = global warmoing isnt even on anybodys radar in terms of concerns.............

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

how do people deny in the face of so much scientific evidence, climate change, or the earth warming, or even the most likely cause of much -- human-induced change?

Which scientific evidence would that be? Output from models doesn't constitute evidence of anything more than icompetent programming skills. There is not a whit of observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activites of man and the perpetually changing climate.

If you believe, as clearly you do, that there exists this overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that points the finger at man in regard to climate change, how about you post a bit of it.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Faith?

Is NASA a religion?

Faith = religious belief?

poor Frank. when will you ever learn? now try to disprove a few things on NASA's Climate Change Web Site Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Climate models tell me that there's a 50% chance of rain tomorrow; how much faith should one have when their models tell you that in 48 years the ice caps will melt and the oceans will turn to gastric juices?

Do you deny there is a 50% chance of rain, when models say there is? I doubt the ice caps would melt to the point of oceans turning to gastric juices, because like the acid rain battles of a few decades ago, and the air quality battles of SoCal, those without their heads in the sand will act.

Let us be honest, the models most people speak about predict outcomes if nothing is done to slow down or correct human contributions.

 

[Intense]

how do people deny in the face of so much scientific evidence, climate change, or the earth warming, or even the most likely cause of much -- human-induced change?

So how many million Humans do you want to kill off Dante?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

NASA has a global climate change web site?

What a world, what a world.

Vital Signs of the Planet

damn liberal scientists!

 

[BillyV]

Does human activity affect climate? I’m not an expert (as is probably true for most who debate this issue) and therefore I have no comment on that, other than to say it seems likely that we have some effect; whether negligible or otherwise I don’t know. However, it seems the debate never gets past the “is so/is not/is so/is not” stage. But if we accept for the moment that our use of fossil fuels is the problem, what is the answer? The world population is about 7 billion; it first exceeded one billion in 1804; the next billion came in 1927; and the remaining 5 billion have been added in the last 80 years, 1 billion of which were in the last 12 years (!) The population explosion is, I think, directly related to the industrial revolution and our ability to feed, clothe and house much greater populations, and perhaps to a lesser extent to medical advances that prolong life. It seems the current resistance to change to alternative energy sources relates to the greater efficiency provided by fossil fuels; otherwise the market would certainly embrace a better alternative. Even with massive subsidies, the green energy market has not provided successfully for an alternative to oil, coal and natural gas as far as I can see. If green energy will be more than marginally less efficient, the result could be an inability to provide for all those people. Massive economic depravity and starvation may not be preferable to the rising of the oceans even if the scientists are correct. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to investigate renewable energy sources; surely at some point we will run out of finite non-renewable sources.
In addition, the environmental proponents in the West may have made matters worse by making it such a priority in the Western nations to reduce emissions that companies have been regulated out of those nations and into developing countries where they are less likely to be concerned with the environmental damage caused by their actions. China became the world’s largest polluter a few years ago. They argue that they have a lower rate per capita than the Western nations, but that gap is closing fast. Their current argument is that the Western nations’ per capita rate should include products consumed in the West but produced in China. So what we have done, it seems, is offshore our manufacturing to countries that have less restrictions and thus do more damage, and then re-import the resulting products. On a global basis, it appears the environment is worse off, in addition to our economies suffering for loss of manufacturing jobs. Sounds like a lose-lose to me.

 

[wirebender]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

Which part of that do you believe represents proof of anything. There was not a single bit of hard evidence there that points the finger at man as responsible for the changing climate. There was much conjecture, and guesswork, and assumption and bias, but not a single shred of hard evidence that proves that man is in any way responsible for the changing climate.

Do feel free to link to any part that you believe is backed up by hard observable, repeatable evidence of any sort.

As to the nobel, the fact that gore and obama got them pretty much proves that the organization is for sale to the highest bidder.

And of course there is bogus data on the nasa site. It has been shown over and over. The altered temperature records that they get from giss is a prime example.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. Show me the one laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes Global warming and turns the oceans acidic.

More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!

You can't even read or count!

I said "a. 01% change in atmospheric composition"

Do you understand that CO2 is a rounding error in our atmosphere? Do you know what PPM stands for?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Faith = religious belief?

poor Frank. when will you ever learn? now try to disprove a few things on NASA's Climate Change Web Site Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Climate models tell me that there's a 50% chance of rain tomorrow; how much faith should one have when their models tell you that in 48 years the ice caps will melt and the oceans will turn to gastric juices?

Do you deny there is a 50% chance of rain, when models say there is? I doubt the ice caps would melt to the point of oceans turning to gastric juices, because like the acid rain battles of a few decades ago, and the air quality battles of SoCal, those without their heads in the sand will act.

Let us be honest, the models most people speak about predict outcomes if nothing is done to slow down or correct human contributions.

You're assuming human contributions are something more meaningful that a cow fart in a Cat 5 hurricane and can somehow alter the climate.

All I've ever asked is for one lab experiment that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding CO2 does ANY of the things its alleged and I get back nothing but stupidity and insults. Which leads me to believe that the contention that we're causing AGW is total horseshit.

 

[konradv]

1. Show me the one laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a .01% change in atmospheric composition causes Global warming and turns the oceans acidic.

More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!

You can't even read or count!

I said "a. 01% change in atmospheric composition"

Do you understand that CO2 is a rounding error in our atmosphere? Do you know what PPM stands for?

I don't think you know the difference between "active ingredients" and "inert ingredients". Differences need to be based on the former, NOT the latter. Maybe you can fool the unsophisticated, but you'd still get an 'F' in a real science class.

 

[konradv]

All I've ever asked is for one lab experiment that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding CO2 does ANY of the things its alleged and I get back nothing but stupidity and insults. Which leads me to believe that the contention that we're causing AGW is total horseshit.

If you're getting insults, it's because you keep posting the same faulty math.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!

You can't even read or count!

I said "a. 01% change in atmospheric composition"

Do you understand that CO2 is a rounding error in our atmosphere? Do you know what PPM stands for?

I don't think you know the difference between "active ingredients" and "inert ingredients". Differences need to be based on the former, NOT the latter. Maybe you can fool the unsophisticated, but you'd still get an 'F' in a real science class.

Who brought up the phony distinction between active and inert ingredients?...oh you did just now!

Learn to read and count and you won't have to try to bail yourself out all the time

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All I've ever asked is for one lab experiment that shows how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding CO2 does ANY of the things its alleged and I get back nothing but stupidity and insults. Which leads me to believe that the contention that we're causing AGW is total horseshit.

If you're getting insults, it's because you keep posting the same faulty math.

Learn to read.

Learn to count.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More like a 30-40% change. Quit lying, Frank. That's like doubling the active ingredient of a drug, but claiming it's less because you've included inactive ingredients in your calculation. That'd get you an 'F' in any science class!!!

You can't even read or count!

I said "a. 01% change in atmospheric composition"

Do you understand that CO2 is a rounding error in our atmosphere? Do you know what PPM stands for?

I don't think you know the difference between "active ingredients" and "inert ingredients". Differences need to be based on the former, NOT the latter. Maybe you can fool the unsophisticated, but you'd still get an 'F' in a real science class.

Is that what they teach in AGhostbustersW classes?

 

[konradv]

O.K., let's settle this math problem with an example most of us can understand. I go to a bar and order a Screwdriver that's 1 ounce vodka and 3 ounces orange juice. That isn't strong enough for me, so I ask for another shot. Now most people would say the alcohol content was increased 100%. However, if you use Frankematics, you've only increased the alcohol 25%!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, for the cretins here, this article means nothing, having been written by scientists rather than an obese junkie on the radio.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044025/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044025.pdf

Abstract
Attributing observed climate change to causes is challenging. This letter communicates the
physical arguments used in attribution, and the statistical methods applied to explore to what
extent different possible causes can be used to explain the recent climate records. The methods
use fingerprints of climate change that are identified on the basis of the physics governing our
climate system, and through the use of climate model experiments. These fingerprints
characterize the geographical and vertical pattern of the expected changes caused by external
influences, for example, greenhouse gas increases and changes in solar radiation, taking also
into account how these forcings and their effects vary over time. These time–space fingerprints
can be used to discriminate between observed climate changes caused by different external
factors. Attribution assessments necessarily take the natural variability of the climate system
into account as well, evaluating whether an observed change can be explained in terms of this
internal variability alone, and estimating the contribution of this source of variability to the
observed change. Hence the assessment that a large part of the observed recent warming is
anthropogenic is based on a rigorous quantitative analysis of these joint drivers and their
effects, and proceeds through a much more comprehensive and layered analysis than a
comparison at face value of model simulations with observations.

Complete text at site