When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[wirebender]

repeating a few talking points may make you feel smatah, but believe me, it only makes you look ignorant.

And yet, you remain completely unable to answer even one of them. What a laugh.

Observable data? NASA is NOT using computer models without hard evidence. Predictions?

Of course they were and that is why they, and all other agencies who are trusted to maintain the temperature record have taken to altering the data. The output of the models did not match the observations so they had to start altering the observations to match the computer output and subsequent predictions.

You harp on about predictions. Global warming is NOT based on predictions. Maybe you are confused about things? It happens when people rely on talking points they do not fully understand. it's like you're a monkey reproducing what you see your handlers doing.

Of course it is based on predictions. If you aren't aware of that, then you are even more ignorant on the topic than I first thought. Here, have a gander at the predictions made by the models and the abysmal failure that they represent.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Tell me dante, can you name even one factor in the present climate that is even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variability? Of course you can't and yet, you cling to your faith. You are blinded by your political leanings to the point that you have fallen for the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Congratulations.

 

[bripat9643]

there was an error ::: Thursday, August 16, 2007 Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

shit happens

but why can't a right wing nut here @ USMB answer a simple request? why do they need old corrections fed to them, old corrections that do absolutely nothing to refute the latest data andbtw, the overwhelming amount of data?

Einstein was in error on a few points in his big theory. Are righties now going to refute all of Einstein?

"old corrections?" You mean why should anyone care that NASA has changed its official data multiple times? It takes a special kind of stupid to ask a question like that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you just not like the source? Prove the data provided by the charts incorrect.

I asked first.

The graphs showing data tampering are correct. Feel free to prove them wrong. Your position is based on your political leanings rather than any actual science. Sad really, but there you are.

political leanings? when did believing NASA scientists become political?


oh yeah, never mind

 

[bripat9643]

political leanings? when did believing NASA scientists become political?:

When they became members of the AGW cult.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

repeating a few talking points may make you feel smatah, but believe me, it only makes you look ignorant.

And yet, you remain completely unable to answer even one of them. What a laugh.

Observable data? NASA is NOT using computer models without hard evidence. Predictions?

Of course they were and that is why they, and all other agencies who are trusted to maintain the temperature record have taken to altering the data. The output of the models did not match the observations so they had to start altering the observations to match the computer output and subsequent predictions.

You harp on about predictions. Global warming is NOT based on predictions. Maybe you are confused about things? It happens when people rely on talking points they do not fully understand. it's like you're a monkey reproducing what you see your handlers doing.

Of course it is based on predictions. If you aren't aware of that, then you are even more ignorant on the topic than I first thought. Here, have a gander at the predictions made by the models and the abysmal failure that they represent.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Tell me dante, can you name even one factor in the present climate that is even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variability? Of course you can't and yet, you cling to your faith. You are blinded by your political leanings to the point that you have fallen for the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Congratulations.

you people back and believe economic models and quote them as gospel, yet you do intellectual somersaults attempting to discredit widely accepted scientific theories, and factual data?

hmmmm.... wingnutty

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

political leanings? when did believing NASA scientists become political?:

When they became members of the AGW cult.

cult? NASA is part of a secret cult?

who knew?

 

[wirebender]

I asked first.

The graphs showing data tampering are correct. Feel free to prove them wrong. Your position is based on your political leanings rather than any actual science. Sad really, but there you are.

political leanings? when did believing NASA scientists become political?


oh yeah, never mind

When nasa scientists became political. They want their share of the billions being doled out and hansen, a known political activist is leading the way. You are wrong from your very foundations and therefore all conclusions you draw based on your foundations are flawed.

 

[wirebender]

you people back and believe economic models and quote them as gospel, yet you do intellectual somersaults attempting to discredit widely accepted scientific theories, and factual data?

hmmmm.... wingnutty

I don't think I have ever either backed or believed an economic model. Talk about a red herring. This discussion is about climate change and the absolute lack of any sort of hard evidence to support the claim.

And again, man made climate change is not a theory. There is no where near enough hard, observed data to elevate the claim to the status of a theory. Hell, when challenged, you couldn't even offer up enough data to legitimately call it a hypothesis.

Now back to the question you dodged. What factor in the present climate that is even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variability? You claim that man is altering the climate and yet, you can't name one thing in the climate that is even near the innermost borders of natural variability. You can't provide any sort of hard, observable evidence that establishes any sort of hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. Hell, you can provide nothing at all but your own faith and I am afraid that simply doesn't cut it.

Lets try an easy one. Which physical law(s) support and predict a greenhouse effect as described by climate science. Surely you can answer that one. I mean, after all, I can name several state that no greenhouse effect as described by climate science can exist. The second law of thermodynamics for example and the law of conservation of energy in addition to the Stefan Boltzman law. Can you name even one that predicts man made climate change? Answer: no.

 

[wirebender]

political leanings? when did believing NASA scientists become political?:

When they became members of the AGW cult.

cult? NASA is part of a secret cult?

who knew?

It's no secret. Are you aware that in British courts, belief in AGW has been elevated to the status of a religion?

Do you know what faith is? The dictionary defines faith as a strong belief in something that is not based on proof. When asked for any sort of proof that man is responsible for the changing global climate, you, and every other warmist remain unable to deliver and yet, your belief is unshakable. That, my friend, is faith and that is all you have. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual proof. Name some feature in the current climate that is outside the realm of natural variability, or perhaps, name just one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[konradv]

you people back and believe economic models and quote them as gospel, yet you do intellectual somersaults attempting to discredit widely accepted scientific theories, and factual data?

hmmmm.... wingnutty

I don't think I have ever either backed or believed an economic model. Talk about a red herring. This discussion is about climate change and the absolute lack of any sort of hard evidence to support the claim.

And again, man made climate change is not a theory. There is no where near enough hard, observed data to elevate the claim to the status of a theory. Hell, when challenged, you couldn't even offer up enough data to legitimately call it a hypothesis.

Now back to the question you dodged. What factor in the present climate that is even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variability? You claim that man is altering the climate and yet, you can't name one thing in the climate that is even near the innermost borders of natural variability. You can't provide any sort of hard, observable evidence that establishes any sort of hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. Hell, you can provide nothing at all but your own faith and I am afraid that simply doesn't cut it.

Lets try an easy one. Which physical law(s) support and predict a greenhouse effect as described by climate science. Surely you can answer that one. I mean, after all, I can name several state that no greenhouse effect as described by climate science can exist. The second law of thermodynamics for example and the law of conservation of energy in addition to the Stefan Boltzman law. Can you name even one that predicts man made climate change? Answer: no.

You're misapplying those laws. Since we're talking about photons and not heat the 2nd law doesn't apply. Given the fact, which anyone with a basic spectrophotometer can show, that CO2 absorbs in the IR range and since photons can be re-emitted back towards earth, Conservation of Energy comes into play. If the re-emitted photon isn't going towards adding to heat, what happened to its energy?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you people back and believe economic models and quote them as gospel, yet you do intellectual somersaults attempting to discredit widely accepted scientific theories, and factual data?

hmmmm.... wingnutty

I don't think I have ever either backed or believed an economic model. Talk about a red herring. This discussion is about climate change and the absolute lack of any sort of hard evidence to support the claim.

And again, man made climate change is not a theory. There is no where near enough hard, observed data to elevate the claim to the status of a theory. Hell, when challenged, you couldn't even offer up enough data to legitimately call it a hypothesis.

Now back to the question you dodged. What factor in the present climate that is even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variability? You claim that man is altering the climate and yet, you can't name one thing in the climate that is even near the innermost borders of natural variability. You can't provide any sort of hard, observable evidence that establishes any sort of hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. Hell, you can provide nothing at all but your own faith and I am afraid that simply doesn't cut it.

Lets try an easy one. Which physical law(s) support and predict a greenhouse effect as described by climate science. Surely you can answer that one. I mean, after all, I can name several state that no greenhouse effect as described by climate science can exist. The second law of thermodynamics for example and the law of conservation of energy in addition to the Stefan Boltzman law. Can you name even one that predicts man made climate change? Answer: no.

please, allow me to repost what you choose to ignore...

You're misapplying those laws. Since we're talking about photons and not heat the 2nd law doesn't apply. Given the fact, which anyone with a basic spectrophotometer can show, that CO2 absorbs in the IR range and since photons can be re-emitted back towards earth, Conservation of Energy comes into play. If the re-emitted photon isn't going towards adding to heat, what happened to its energy?

but Like I said before, I'm not a scientist and I do not play one on the internet(s). I just follow NASA and the greater scientific community.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When they became members of the AGW cult.

cult? NASA is part of a secret cult?

who knew?

It's no secret. Are you aware that in British courts, belief in AGW has been elevated to the status of a religion?

Do you know what faith is? The dictionary defines faith as a strong belief in something that is not based on proof. When asked for any sort of proof that man is responsible for the changing global climate, you, and every other warmist remain unable to deliver and yet, your belief is unshakable. That, my friend, is faith and that is all you have. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual proof. Name some feature in the current climate that is outside the realm of natural variability, or perhaps, name just one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

you go too far out of your way to build a convoluted case for your world view. your world view is distorted by your ideology. I have no ideology, only a belief that the scientific community as a whole is more than likely correct where you are in error.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The graphs showing data tampering are correct. Feel free to prove them wrong. Your position is based on your political leanings rather than any actual science. Sad really, but there you are.

political leanings? when did believing NASA scientists become political?


oh yeah, never mind

When nasa scientists became political. They want their share of the billions being doled out and hansen, a known political activist is leading the way. You are wrong from your very foundations and therefore all conclusions you draw based on your foundations are flawed.

my foundations? a belief that the scientific community as a whole values science over ideology and grants?

I can point to crooked scientists. that does not prove the scientific community as a whole is corrupt. your problem is your distorted world view. It leads to projection on such a grand scale that I am surprised you would venture outside the safety of your own home. then again maybe you don't? there is more evidence that you are a shut-in than there is evidence you are sane.

 

[wirebender]

You're misapplying those laws.

Says the guy who fails to even grasp what they mean. I am laughing in your face konradv.

Since we're talking about photons and not heat the 2nd law doesn't apply.

Since a photon is theoretically the smallest packet of energy within an EM field, the second law of thermodynamics most certainly does apply. Your inability to understand such a fundamentally basic concept is, frankly, pathetic. It is only your abject ignorance konradv, that keeps you from being embarassed off this board. If you were able to even partially understand how wrong you are, you would flee in mortification.

Given the fact, which anyone with a basic spectrophotometer can show, that CO2 absorbs in the IR range and since photons can be re-emitted back towards earth, Conservation of Energy comes into play.

Yes, conservation of energy is there. It is always there. It says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you understood the concept, you would understand that radiation from the atmosphere can not be absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Lets try to explain this again and keep it real simple because we both know that math isn't your thing. Say you have 10 watts per square meter of energy radiating in from the sun and for simplicity's sake, all 10 watts per square meter are being absorbed by the earth.

And for simplicity's sake the earth is a perfect radiator and all 10 watts per square meter are being radiated back. Now in the atmosphere you have some CO2 molecules and lets say for simplicity's sake that they radiate back 1 watt per square meter towards the earth.

If that 1 watt per square meter or any part of that 1 watt per square meter actually reached the surface and was absorbed, then the earth would begin to radiate somethig more than the 10 watts per square meter it receives from its only energy source. If it began to radiate even 10.0000001 watts per square meter, then that would mean that energy is being created from somewhere because it didn't come from the only energy source (the sun).

The law of conservation of energy states explicitly that energy can't be created. So tell me konradv, if energy can't be created and the surface of the earth is only receiving 10 watts per square meter from its only energy source, where did that 0.0000001 watt per square meter come from? How can the surface of the earth radiate more energy than it receives from its only energy source without the creation of additional energy from somewhere?

If the re-emitted photon isn't going towards adding to heat, what happened to its energy?

I have explained it over and over to you. It is expended in oppostion to the EM field being radiated by the surface. The field being radiated by the surface is then diminished by that amount of energy being back radiated in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. The energy represented by backradiation is not simply disappearing, it is being expended against the EM field radiated from the earth and the EM field radiated by the earth is being lessened by that amount. Precisely as the law of conservation of energy predicts.

 

[wirebender]

but Like I said before, I'm not a scientist and I do not play one on the internet(s). I just follow NASA and the greater scientific community.

So, as I said, you are operating from a position of faith. That's unfortunate for you but I am not operating from a position of faith. I happen to understand the physics and can do the math for myself.

By the way, I have ignored nothing. I have explained that bit of physics to konradv a dozen or more times and have done the math for him, and others, here on this board to prove my point. His profound ignorance is the reason he keeps asking questions that have already been answered ad nauseum.

 

[konradv]

I have explained it over and over to you. It is expended in oppostion to the EM field being radiated by the surface. The field being radiated by the surface is then diminished by that amount of energy being back radiated in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. The energy represented by backradiation is not simply disappearing, it is being expended against the EM field radiated from the earth and the EM field radiated by the earth is being lessened by that amount. Precisely as the law of conservation of energy predicts.

You haven't explained anything. Now you have TWO packets of energy missing, the back-scattered photon and the reflected photon. You haven't proven Conservation of Energy; you've doubled-down on violating it!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Bent constantly plays as if he has a vast knowledge of physics, yet he does not even know the basis of the H-R Diagram for steller evolution.

 

[wirebender]

You haven't explained anything. Now you have TWO packets of energy missing, the back-scattered photon and the reflected photon. You haven't proven Conservation of Energy; you've doubled-down on violating it!!!

I swear it is like talking to a hamster. When one force, any force, whether it be two flowing bodies of water, two electrical currents, two mechanical devices, or two EM fields oppose each other, the one of greater magnitude determines the direction of movement. The lesser one expends its energy against the larger one and as a result, the force of greater magnitude is reduced by the amount of force applied by the lesser force. That reduction of magnitude of the greater force coupled with the depletion of energy by the lesser force = work. Work, you know, that thing that happens when you expend energy.

Are you now going to claim that when work is done, the law of conseration of energy states that the energy remains in addition to the work performed? You do realize that if that were possible, perpetual motion would be possible.

I swear knonradv, it seems that your IQ has actually diminished. You keep making more and more stupid arguments and it is as if you are completely unable to think on your own.

 

[wirebender]

Ol' Bent constantly plays as if he has a vast knowledge of physics, yet he does not even know the basis of the H-R Diagram for steller evolution.

I know the basis and I ask again, what empirical evidence is it based upon. If you know even 1/100 of what you pretend to know then you know the answer is none. The fact is that it represents nothing more and nothing less than how we think stars evolve. It is supported by nothing more than the best guesses of astrophysicists and I doubt that any one of them would step up and claim that the diagram represents anything more than what is presently thought on the topic.

 

[konradv]

You haven't explained anything. Now you have TWO packets of energy missing, the back-scattered photon and the reflected photon. You haven't proven Conservation of Energy; you've doubled-down on violating it!!!

I swear it is like talking to a hamster. When one force, any force, whether it be two flowing bodies of water, two electrical currents, two mechanical devices, or two EM fields oppose each other, the one of greater magnitude determines the direction of movement. The lesser one expends its energy against the larger one and as a result, the force of greater magnitude is reduced by the amount of force applied by the lesser force. That reduction of magnitude of the greater force coupled with the depletion of energy by the lesser force = work. Work, you know, that thing that happens when you expend energy.

Are you now going to claim that when work is done, the law of conseration of energy states that the energy remains in addition to the work performed? You do realize that if that were possible, perpetual motion would be possible.

Let's see, talking about heat when we're discussing photons didn't work, so now you're going to bring in force?!?! What force? We're talking about particles called PHOTONS and their abiltiy to interact with each other. Quit trying to change the topic. Heat isn't photons. Force isn't photons. Work isn't photons. The ONLY explanation I will accept will be when you demonstrate how one photon stops another from heading toward earth.