When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site???

 

[wirebender]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site?

Tell me dante, where on that site do you see even a smattering of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes anything more than the most dubious etherial link between the activities of man and the changing climate? Feel free to provide a link or simply state where anything even resembling hard evidence that man is responsible for the changing climate may be found anywhere on the site.

As to bogus info, any claims of such hard evidence as I have asked for constitute bogus information as no such hard data exist. Further, any reference to giss, noaa, ncdc, ushcn, cru, ghcn, or nasa's own temperature records is bogus as well as there is ample evidence of data tampering to create the illusion of warming in all of the above records and the satellite data as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site?

Tell me dante, where on that site do you see even a smattering of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes anything more than the most dubious etherial link between the activities of man and the changing climate? Feel free to provide a link or simply state where anything even resembling hard evidence that man is responsible for the changing climate may be found anywhere on the site.

As to bogus info, any claims of such hard evidence as I have asked for constitute bogus information as no such hard data exist. Further, any reference to giss, noaa, ncdc, ushcn, cru, ghcn, or nasa's own temperature records is bogus as well as there is ample evidence of data tampering to create the illusion of warming in all of the above records and the satellite data as well.

Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat

 

[westwall]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site?

Tell me dante, where on that site do you see even a smattering of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes anything more than the most dubious etherial link between the activities of man and the changing climate? Feel free to provide a link or simply state where anything even resembling hard evidence that man is responsible for the changing climate may be found anywhere on the site.

As to bogus info, any claims of such hard evidence as I have asked for constitute bogus information as no such hard data exist. Further, any reference to giss, noaa, ncdc, ushcn, cru, ghcn, or nasa's own temperature records is bogus as well as there is ample evidence of data tampering to create the illusion of warming in all of the above records and the satellite data as well.

Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat

Yes, where is the tin hat that thinks it's OK to go back 50 years and change the historical temp record to try and support your fraudulent meme that the world is warming when every temp record say's otherwise.

Tin hats you say? Look in the mirror and you will see a doozy.

 

[wirebender]

Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat

Where is your little tin hat? Look on your head you idiot. Which idiotic claim are you making now? That there is hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes an actual link between the activities of man and the changing global climate, or that the temperature record has not been tampered with?

I will happily show you the evidence of temperature tampering. Here are a few prime examples, if you want more, just ask.

Want more? Just ask and I will be happy to oblige. Now, how about showing even one bit of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that even might constitute a smoking gun with regard to the activities of man and the changing global climate.

Everyone knows which side is sporting the tin foil hats around here rocks. When evidence is presented, the skeptical side is showing observational evidence and all your side has is computer output as if that constituted anything more than a fine example of incompetent programming.

 

[editec]

Like many of you who do not believe in Gloabl Warming, I too have my doubts about mankind's ability to forecast long term tends in climate.

However unlike many of you I do not have any doubts that science can find evidence to support the theory that the climate has been changing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bent, the US is less than 2% of the worlds surface. Even if your graphs are correct, it hardly reflects what is happening worldwide. But even in the US, we see the observational evidences of the warming. Glaciar National Park will soon have no glaciers. The North Cascade glaciers are also rapidly melting. In Alaska, all but a couple of glaciers are in rapid recession.

Now you can flap yap all you want, but the real scientists at the AGU and the GSA state unequivocally that they are observing the signs of a rapidly warming world on every continent. And that the primary cause is the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat

Where is your little tin hat? Look on your head you idiot. Which idiotic claim are you making now? That there is hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes an actual link between the activities of man and the changing global climate, or that the temperature record has not been tampered with?

I will happily show you the evidence of temperature tampering. Here are a few prime examples, if you want more, just ask.

Want more? Just ask and I will be happy to oblige. Now, how about showing even one bit of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that even might constitute a smoking gun with regard to the activities of man and the changing global climate.

Everyone knows which side is sporting the tin foil hats around here rocks. When evidence is presented, the skeptical side is showing observational evidence and all your side has is computer output as if that constituted anything more than a fine example of incompetent programming.

No matter how many times you prove to these turds that the data is doctored, they will continue to cite NASA, NCDC and the HCRU as valid sources of climate data. they just don't care, and they are counting on the public being to apathetic to check it.

 

[bripat9643]

Bent, the US is less than 2% of the worlds surface. Even if your graphs are correct, it hardly reflects what is happening worldwide. But even in the US, we see the observational evidences of the warming. Glaciar National Park will soon have no glaciers. The North Cascade glaciers are also rapidly melting. In Alaska, all but a couple of glaciers are in rapid recession.

Now you can flap yap all you want, but the real scientists at the AGU and the GSA state unequivocally that they are observing the signs of a rapidly warming world on every continent. And that the primary cause is the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

Your argument is called an "appeal to authority." it's just one of the dozens of fallacies that the members of the AGW cult use to bamboozle the ignorant.

 

[wirebender]

Like many of you who do not believe in Gloabl Warming, I too have my doubts about mankind's ability to forecast long term tends in climate.

However unlike many of you I do not have any doubts that science can find evidence to support the theory that the climate has been changing.

It isn't a theory that the climate is changing. That is an undisputable fact. The climate is constantly changing. Always has always will. The idea that man is somehow responsible is not a theory. It is a piss poor hypothesis at best. Check the definition of theory and hypothesis and you point to me any evidence strong enough to elevate the idea of AGW to hypothesis status.

 

[wirebender]

Bent, the US is less than 2% of the worlds surface. Even if your graphs are correct, it hardly reflects what is happening worldwide. But even in the US, we see the observational evidences of the warming. Glaciar National Park will soon have no glaciers. The North Cascade glaciers are also rapidly melting. In Alaska, all but a couple of glaciers are in rapid recession.

Now you can flap yap all you want, but the real scientists at the AGU and the GSA state unequivocally that they are observing the signs of a rapidly warming world on every continent. And that the primary cause is the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

Rocks you moron; I am sure that geography isn't your thing, but even a dolt like you should have been able to see that the graphs I provided above were not restricted to the US.

As to evidence of warming in the US, perhaps you should check your facts. The temperature in the US is on the decline to the tune of almost 5 degrees per century. That is the raw before doctoring data that is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Lunacy of wirebender's wires gone haywire

Like many of you who do not believe in Gloabl Warming, I too have my doubts about mankind's ability to forecast long term tends in climate.

However unlike many of you I do not have any doubts that science can find evidence to support the theory that the climate has been changing.

It isn't a theory that the climate is changing. That is an undisputable fact. The climate is constantly changing. Always has always will. The idea that man is somehow responsible is not a theory. It is a piss poor hypothesis at best. Check the definition of theory and hypothesis and you point to me any evidence strong enough to elevate the idea of AGW to hypothesis status.

Man has little to no effect on the biosphere? you really want to go with that line of reasoning?

Facts are we in the USA dealt with acid rain and auto pollution and factory pollution and the evidence is in -- the EPA and state rules have cleaned up the air in many states. The west coast beaches are coming back. Lakes and rivers and mountains...

when people like you put your head in the sand because of ideological positions, your critical thinking skills go haywire.

Anecdotal evidence and intuitive reasoning alone would be enough to convince even a non-partisan moron that man's actions are affecting the planet, but there is also scientific evidence galore of this 'theory'

Arguing that the climate has always changed is a red herring. There is NO counter argument to this fact. The argument is that man is affecting the change in harmful ways.


dD

 

[whitehall]

The graph should settle the issue that whatever global warming is happening is not caused by man, specifically Americans. The fact that the left assumes the graph proves that global warming is man-made is an indication that lefties rely on emotion and hatred for their Country rather than logic. If the difference in the CO between today and 650,000 years is accurate and CO causes global warming then according to the graph we should be enjoying summer weather year round in North America...but we aren't. Therefore it seems that CO emissions do not cause global warming and we can stop the extortion scheme that is intended to drive the United States into bankruptcy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The graph should settle the issue that whatever global warming is happening is not caused by man, specifically Americans. The fact that the left assumes the graph proves that global warming is man-made is an indication that lefties rely on emotion and hatred for their Country rather than logic. If the difference in the CO between today and 650,000 years is accurate and CO causes global warming then according to the graph we should be enjoying summer weather year round in North America...but we aren't. Therefore it seems that CO emissions do not cause global warming and we can stop the extortion scheme that is intended to drive the United States into bankruptcy.

one graph? that settles it for me. you win.

The Lunacy of wirebender's wires gone haywire

Like many of you who do not believe in Gloabl Warming, I too have my doubts about mankind's ability to forecast long term tends in climate.

However unlike many of you I do not have any doubts that science can find evidence to support the theory that the climate has been changing.

It isn't a theory that the climate is changing. That is an undisputable fact. The climate is constantly changing. Always has always will. The idea that man is somehow responsible is not a theory. It is a piss poor hypothesis at best. Check the definition of theory and hypothesis and you point to me any evidence strong enough to elevate the idea of AGW to hypothesis status.

Man has little to no effect on the biosphere? you really want to go with that line of reasoning?

Facts are we in the USA dealt with acid rain and auto pollution and factory pollution and the evidence is in -- the EPA and state rules have cleaned up the air in many states. The west coast beaches are coming back. Lakes and rivers and mountains...

when people like you put your head in the sand because of ideological positions, your critical thinking skills go haywire.

Anecdotal evidence and intuitive reasoning alone would be enough to convince even a non-partisan moron that man's actions are affecting the planet, but there is also scientific evidence galore of this 'theory'

Arguing that the climate has always changed is a red herring. There is NO counter argument to this fact. The argument is that man is affecting the change in harmful ways.


dD

 

[whitehall]

Since Barry Hussein grounded the Space Shuttle program the administration probably decided that since the taxpayer funding for NASA is still flowing it might be used as the propaganda arm of the green revolution. The graph obviously intends to illustrate shocking evidence that CO emissions are off the chart but the chart flies in the face of reality. Europeans endured an horrific winter in 2011/12 but if CO emissions are as high as NASA claims they should have had as mild a winter as Americans enjoyed. If the chart is accurate (and I have reservations about going back 650,000 years) it indicates that CO emissions do not have an effect on climate.

 

[Troubadour]

NASA has always been committed to science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat

Where is your little tin hat? Look on your head you idiot. Which idiotic claim are you making now? That there is hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes an actual link between the activities of man and the changing global climate, or that the temperature record has not been tampered with?

I will happily show you the evidence of temperature tampering. Here are a few prime examples, if you want more, just ask.

Want more? Just ask and I will be happy to oblige. Now, how about showing even one bit of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that even might constitute a smoking gun with regard to the activities of man and the changing global climate.

Everyone knows which side is sporting the tin foil hats around here rocks. When evidence is presented, the skeptical side is showing observational evidence and all your side has is computer output as if that constituted anything more than a fine example of incompetent programming.

No matter how many times you prove to these turds that the data is doctored, they will continue to cite NASA, NCDC and the HCRU as valid sources of climate data. they just don't care, and they are counting on the public being to apathetic to check it.

Pattycake, you have yet to present proof of anything.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The graph should settle the issue that whatever global warming is happening is not caused by man, specifically Americans. The fact that the left assumes the graph proves that global warming is man-made is an indication that lefties rely on emotion and hatred for their Country rather than logic. If the difference in the CO between today and 650,000 years is accurate and CO causes global warming then according to the graph we should be enjoying summer weather year round in North America...but we aren't. Therefore it seems that CO emissions do not cause global warming and we can stop the extortion scheme that is intended to drive the United States into bankruptcy.

one graph? that settles it for me. you win.

The Lunacy of wirebender's wires gone haywire

It isn't a theory that the climate is changing. That is an undisputable fact. The climate is constantly changing. Always has always will. The idea that man is somehow responsible is not a theory. It is a piss poor hypothesis at best. Check the definition of theory and hypothesis and you point to me any evidence strong enough to elevate the idea of AGW to hypothesis status.

Man has little to no effect on the biosphere? you really want to go with that line of reasoning?

Facts are we in the USA dealt with acid rain and auto pollution and factory pollution and the evidence is in -- the EPA and state rules have cleaned up the air in many states. The west coast beaches are coming back. Lakes and rivers and mountains...

when people like you put your head in the sand because of ideological positions, your critical thinking skills go haywire.

Anecdotal evidence and intuitive reasoning alone would be enough to convince even a non-partisan moron that man's actions are affecting the planet, but there is also scientific evidence galore of this 'theory'

Arguing that the climate has always changed is a red herring. There is NO counter argument to this fact. The argument is that man is affecting the change in harmful ways.


dD

NASA...

please get an almighty rightie to point out one error on NASA'a web site concerning climate change and global warming

 

[westwall]

The graph should settle the issue that whatever global warming is happening is not caused by man, specifically Americans. The fact that the left assumes the graph proves that global warming is man-made is an indication that lefties rely on emotion and hatred for their Country rather than logic. If the difference in the CO between today and 650,000 years is accurate and CO causes global warming then according to the graph we should be enjoying summer weather year round in North America...but we aren't. Therefore it seems that CO emissions do not cause global warming and we can stop the extortion scheme that is intended to drive the United States into bankruptcy.

one graph? that settles it for me. you win.

The Lunacy of wirebender's wires gone haywire



Man has little to no effect on the biosphere? you really want to go with that line of reasoning?

Facts are we in the USA dealt with acid rain and auto pollution and factory pollution and the evidence is in -- the EPA and state rules have cleaned up the air in many states. The west coast beaches are coming back. Lakes and rivers and mountains...

when people like you put your head in the sand because of ideological positions, your critical thinking skills go haywire.

Anecdotal evidence and intuitive reasoning alone would be enough to convince even a non-partisan moron that man's actions are affecting the planet, but there is also scientific evidence galore of this 'theory'

Arguing that the climate has always changed is a red herring. There is NO counter argument to this fact. The argument is that man is affecting the change in harmful ways.


dD

NASA...

please get an almighty rightie to point out one error on NASA'a web site concerning climate change and global warming

Actually, you need to find one thing that is correct with what they say.