Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

[jc456]

he gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

You may want to look outside your own opinion when trying to speak for everyone else.

No, the fact there is no proof none, and you won't provide it. Here again, prove 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. All the talk in the world and you can't give up that one experiment that proves that. LOL

 

[BlindBoo]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.

Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.

What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.

That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.

Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.

Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.

 

[jc456]

Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.



What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.

That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.

Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.

Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.

well your side. Ummmm....the models!!!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

We can actually measure the amount of infrared radiation being emitted by the CO2 in our atmosphere. The frequency of that emission is specific to a particular gas, so we can determine which atmospheric gasses are emitting what radiation, if any.

If that were true, then a human fingerprint should be visible...it is not. In fact, even climate science admits that if a human fingerprint exists, it is indistinguishable from noise....

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at a much, much higher rate than oxygen or nitrogen. Worse, the quantity of infrared being emitted by CO2 is increasing as its concentrations in our atmosphere increase. These aren't future events or predictions. These are measurements being taken right now.

Like most alarmists, you seem to be laboring under the impression that absorption and emission equals warming...it does not.

the mechanism for global warming. And its not a grand coincidence that CO2 levels have skyrocketed by 23% or so in only 75 years. The exact 75 years that we've been pumping enormous quantities of extra CO2 into the atmosphere on an industrial scale. An increase that far and that fast is absolutely unprecedented in 800,000 years of ice core records.

Actually most of the 20th century warming took place prior to 1940...and the "mechanism you describe for global warming is not the mechanism the IPCC describes. Interesting how you warmers seem to have your own versions of what causes warming and yet, you believe the science is settled.

are mostly likely the cause.

Hell of a claim to make with exactly zero empirical evidence.

 

[SSDD]

The planet loses an area of rainforest the size of Costa Rica each year while the entire human race simultaneously pumps CO2 into the atmosphere 24hrs/day. China's pollution can be seen from space and there is a field of plastic trash in the Pacific ocean the size of the continental United States.

If you think that this can't have an effect on the environment then you are not a scientist.

Like most warmers you don't seem to be able to separate pollution from the global climate...no one would deny that we damage our environment...but that isn't the global climate. You can easily show proof that we damage the environment and can show no proof aft all that we alter the global climate..and yet, you believe. Belief in a thing you can't prove is called faith.

 

[SSDD]

Yet over 75 years all "trends" have remained the same, not increased despite the fact that man made co2 is literally thousands of times more today than it was 75 years ago. Again, science proves warmers wrong.

Global mean temperatures have trended upward over the last 75 years and continue to trend upward. We can point instruments up at our atmosphere (or down in the case of the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite) and measure increased rates of infrared radiation specifically from CO2.

Some of that infrared is reradiated back to the earth's surface that would have otherwise been radiated into space. Infrared radiation is one of the primary mechanisms of thermal transference. So we have a verifiable mechanism of heat transference increasing in its emissions of thermal energy back to the earth's surface....

....and an upward trend of global temperature means while more thermal energy is being emitted back to the earth's surface. Its like pouring water in a glass: you're gonna get more water in the glass.

via IR, and a measurable increase i

Do you think the surface of the earth absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun?

 

[SSDD]

he gig is up...it's only a matter of time before this hoax is finally and completely exposed. Then we can concentrate on real environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

You may want to look outside your own opinion when trying to speak for everyone else.

Ever notice how the consensus increases with funding?

 

[SSDD]

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

That's what propaganda will do. Sway public opinion.

Overwhelming evidence works just as well. Better even.

Got any actual evidence that man is altering the global climate? Us skeptics have been asking for decades now and none has been forthcoming...We aren't asking for overwhelming evidence...just some and you guys can't even produce that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.

Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.

well your side. Ummmm....the models!!!!!!!

Science say the Sun drives the climate. Increasing the amount of greenhouse gas CO2 is one of the factors that the sun affects.

 

[daveman]

I have three problems with global warming alarmism.

#1 No one on this planet to date has ever been able to give me a 30 day weather forecast that was accurate.

And I'm supposed to believe computer models telling me what the climate is going to be in 50 freaking years?

#2 Who the hell thinks that our governments can fix the planet's climate when they can't fix the potholes on our streets and highways let alone the economy?

And we are supposed to trust our governments and the United Nations to "repair" the weather?

Give them quizzillions in tax dollars to watch our elected officials and left wing whacko global warming freaks do a circle jerk with all our cash?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And drum roll......

ta da!

#3 Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

It's difficult to believe that anyone can be as ignorant as you are regarding climate and weather, and the difference between the two.

That's easy.

If it's warmer, it's climate.

If it's cooler, it's weather.

 

[skookerasbil]

mOrE k00k lOsInG

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.....and then theres this >>>>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


Coming up soon on 100,000 views!!! Well over 3,000 posts!!! HUGE k00k losing!!!


Throwing a party in here when that baby hits 100,000 views!! DeCiMaTiOn!!!


Have to thank my skeptic pals in here for making it happen too.........


FlaCalTenn

Crusader Frank

Westwall

SSDD

Daveman

Ian

Henry Bough

ToddPatriot

Bripat


Freewill


jc456


Political Chick


Longknife


Mr H


Polar Bear

 

[skookerasbil]

And when it hits 100,000, we start a new thread...........

PROOF THE SKEPTICS HAVE WON

 

[jc456]

Check it out! A big list o' losers, conveniently compiled in one spot. I'd like to thank all of them, for allowing me the opportunity to carve so many notches in my virtual 'tard-smacking stick. I actually had to retire the original stick, as all that notching had nearly worn it through. Don't worry, I replaced it with a much beefier model. Denier 'tards are getting dumber, so it takes more emphatic whacks to their virtual noggins to knock sense into them. And if I can't knock sense into them, it's still good fun just to hear them cry.

FlaCalTenn
Crusader Frank
Westwall
SSDD
Daveman
Ian
Henry Bough
ToddPatriot
Bripat
Freewill
jc456
Political Chick
Longknife
Mr H
Polar Bear

thanks for validating the k00ks expression! hahahaahhahaahahahaahahahaahahahahaaha.

 

[westwall]

An idea contradicted by 1) the increasing consensus among earth scientists of the reality of man made global warming 2) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality by the general public, 3) the rising acceptance of global warming as a reality around the world.

Not too dissimilar to the near consensus of 19th century thought regarding blacks being subhuman.
Scientists being subsidized to support a hypothesis are not being scientific.
Ask the atmospherics experts who are not subsidized or otherwise politically affiliated with AGW and you get a more trustworthy diagnosis.

Says you, citing yourself.

Meanwhile, the tide of public opinion surges against your position, both domestically and internationally. And the consensus among earth scientists is just 3 ticks off 100%. Conservatives are losing on this issue. And given the evidence, probably should.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. The public no longer believes your propaganda. You've lost them. Global warming/climate change is last in every poll about public concerns. In many areas of Europe it rates ZERO%.

Your 97% of all earth scientists meme has been proven on multiple occasions to be pure fabrication, feel free to spew it but only you anti science deniers are the only ones who believe the scriptures anymore. The rest of the public has realized that you are all a bunch of religious nutters and they have abandoned you.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what global warming is.



What did the CO2 alarms in today's space shuttle have to do with global warming? Absolutely nothing. The CO2 alarms in the space shuttle measure CO2 levels that are high enough to make breathing difficult. While Global warming has to do with CO2 in our atmosphere keeping in heat by absorbing and re-radiating infrared EM.

That Cunningham would directly compare the two shows us he doesn't really have a clear handle on what global warming is. Which robs his analysis of much of its credibility.

Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.

Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.

And has never been shown to be true. There is ZERO empirical data to support that thought.

 

[Freewill]

I realize that finding out that those of faith didn't fight science they embraced science goes against the paradigm you have created for yourself. But true it is. Maybe after you go to the following link and realize what I posted is true then maybe you could also learn some manners.

Georges Lemaître, Father of the Big Bang

According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous.

 

[Freewill]

Oh.....and then theres this >>>>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


Coming up soon on 100,000 views!!! Well over 3,000 posts!!! HUGE k00k losing!!!


Throwing a party in here when that baby hits 100,000 views!! DeCiMaTiOn!!!


Have to thank my skeptic pals in here for making it happen too.........


FlaCalTenn

Crusader Frank

Westwall

SSDD

Daveman

Ian

Henry Bough

ToddPatriot

Bripat


Freewill


jc456


Political Chick


Longknife


Mr H


Polar Bear

Well thanks you, I can't think of a nicer bunch of folks to be associated with.

 

[Crick]

I can. My list of society preferable to that list includes solitary confinement.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pretty day we had and pretty cold for a fourth of July. What's this guy know it is not like he is a rocket scientist or something.

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ?Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science? | CNS News

Astronaut Bio: Walter Cunningham

EDUCATION: Graduated from Venice High School, Venice, California; received a bachelor of arts degree with honors in Physics in 1960 and a master of arts degree in Physics in 1961 from the University of California at Los Angeles; completed work on Doctorate in Physics with exception of thesis. Advanced Management Program, Harvard Graduate School of Business, 1974.

Yet, the atmospheric physicists who finished their doctorate, and who are active in the field, publishing many articles in peer reviewed journals say just the opposite. I will go with the active researchers.