CDZ Conservatives and Climate Change

[320 Years of History]

Works for. They are no different than anyone else when it comes to position papers and what's being requested by those who provide their funding.

Surely you're not that naive.

??? What possible reason would Congress, NASA's source of funding, have for obfuscating the truth? I don't know if this is apparent to you, but even though various Representatives and Senators may have an "axe to grind" one way or the other, the fact remains that they must nonetheless know what are the objective facts on the matter. Absent those facts, it's very difficult to develop a strategy that may need to (you don't know whether it will or will not need to until you have the facts) to obfuscate and circumvent the truth in order to promote one's objective.

Here is another of NASA's reports. Who do you supposed "commissioned" it?

You can go down the "conspiracy theory" route if you want to, but please, not in this thread.

 

[william the wie]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

From the time of Watt's steam engine (1776) until the Clean Air act (1970) manmade solar radiation blocking particulate matter was on the increase. Most of the developed world "enjoyed" pollution worse than modern day Beijing. Without correction for this rebound what little non-fraudulent data that wiki-leaks has been able to verify does not support the AGW thesis, which is really bizarre because we should be experiencing or have experienced a major overshoot as the world reverts to its mean temperature as to why there is not uncorrupted raw data supporting such a relatively shortlived overshoot is a mystery to me.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Warning:

Some of you are obviously lost. Even tho posters have reminded you what Zone you're in. If you don't know the rules for the CDZone -- it may be too late for you.. 8 posts marked for deletion. Please -- no more..

 

[flacaltenn]

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

Off Topic:
Are you now saying your best man consults for NASA rather than works for NASA?

I have yet to see instances whereby a government agency writes position papers or publishes studies at the behest of non-government entities. I have plenty of non-government organizations perform studies and produce reports at the behest of the government. NASA provides funding to others; NASA receives funding via tax apportionments from Congress. NASA has produced plenty of their own "stuff" pertaining to climate change. Additionally, unlike a great many organizations and individuals that study and write about climate change, NASA actually owns the equipment that produces/gathers a very large share of the raw data used by others, as well as by NASA.

It's preposterous that NASA would tell it's own people "what to find" rather that "what to find out" as goes climate change. What vested interest would NASA have in that? NASA's mission statement is, after all, "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (It used to include the phrase "to understand and protect the home planet," but that was removed in 2006.) Defining in advance what the results are before performing the study is called "proving a point," or "justifying a means" not "discovering" anything.

That concept of Directed Investigation is not preposterous at all. If you study sea slugs and need grant money to survive you will be told there isn't any or not much at all. But if you can make the case that your precious sea slugs are gonna shortly be victims of GWarming -- WELL AHA !!! That's a different story. And all ya gotta do is please the sponsor by repeating the mantra in your Abstract and Press Releases -- and the pot of gold is yours.

So -- who is HANDING OUT these giant pots of GW research money? Largely NOAA and NASA and the other govt "science" agencies. And who do they need to please in order to refill the gold pots every year? The Prez and political caucauses who are out telling America that GW is the greatest threat to their future survival.

It's EXTREMELY political. And as a researcher, I shuttled to D.C. to do the same ole song/dance. Fulfill a bureaucrat's check list by making my research FIT a current Washington fad or craze of the year..

 

[flacaltenn]

"Good Morning, America" is not a person. If what you posted were accurate, you'd know who said it. You don't. No one else is going to do your homework for you, no matter how aggressive you are.

You are too stupid to bother with...just ANOTHER OCDing Ant-American that concentrates on the inconsequential!

That's the second reference to "Ant-Americans" in as many days.

Are they the ones who made those claims on "Good Morning, America"?

Well you certainly fit the definition! Child

Kindly provide a link to where I said any of those things anywhere. (I'll help you out by stating that I've never been on "Good Morning, America.")

Also, are you aware of which forum you're in?

Did I call you the F word? But I just happen to HAVE that VIDEO that you pathetically had no idea what to look for...

Lemme help here.. Earth 2015 was a phony science-killing docudrama totally invented and produced by ABC News. It was awful.. And was promoted on GMA and their other shows. Part of the fear and smear campaign that the media helped to dramatize..

 

[9aces]

Works for. They are no different than anyone else when it comes to position papers and what's being requested by those who provide their funding.

Surely you're not that naive.

??? What possible reason would Congress, NASA's source of funding, have for obfuscating the truth? I don't know if this is apparent to you, but even though various Representatives and Senators may have an "axe to grind" one way or the other, the fact remains that they must nonetheless know what are the objective facts on the matter. Absent those facts, it's very difficult to develop a strategy that may need to (you don't know whether it will or will not need to until you have the facts) to obfuscate and circumvent the truth in order to promote one's objective.

Here is another of NASA's reports. Who do you supposed "commissioned" it?

You can go down the "conspiracy theory" route if you want to, but please, not in this thread.

You didn't even read that report did you? The answer is right in front of you. They tell you that the increase is "unprecedented", and show you the graph to illustrate it over the last 800,000 years. I suggest you use your eyes and look at the 400,000 year mark. Looks eerily familiar doesn't it?

Even more interesting is the spike at around the 150,000 year mark. Kinda kills their 4 to 7 degree variation comment doesn't it?

Oh, and why stop at the 800,000 year mark? That in an of itself is an interesting question if you think about it.

As to who requested it....who pays NASA's bills?

 

[9aces]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

Off Topic:
Are you now saying your best man consults for NASA rather than works for NASA?

I have yet to see instances whereby a government agency writes position papers or publishes studies at the behest of non-government entities. I have plenty of non-government organizations perform studies and produce reports at the behest of the government. NASA provides funding to others; NASA receives funding via tax apportionments from Congress. NASA has produced plenty of their own "stuff" pertaining to climate change. Additionally, unlike a great many organizations and individuals that study and write about climate change, NASA actually owns the equipment that produces/gathers a very large share of the raw data used by others, as well as by NASA.

It's preposterous that NASA would tell it's own people "what to find" rather that "what to find out" as goes climate change. What vested interest would NASA have in that? NASA's mission statement is, after all, "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (It used to include the phrase "to understand and protect the home planet," but that was removed in 2006.) Defining in advance what the results are before performing the study is called "proving a point," or "justifying a means" not "discovering" anything.

That concept of Directed Investigation is not preposterous at all. If you study sea slugs and need grant money to survive you will be told there isn't any or not much at all. But if you can make the case that your precious sea slugs are gonna shortly be victims of GWarming -- WELL AHA !!! That's a different story. And all ya gotta do is please the sponsor by repeating the mantra in your Abstract and Press Releases -- and the pot of gold is yours.

So -- who is HANDING OUT these giant pots of GW research money? Largely NOAA and NASA and the other govt "science" agencies. And who do they need to please in order to refill the gold pots every year? The Prez and political caucauses who are out telling America that GW is the greatest threat to their future survival.

It's EXTREMELY political. And as a researcher, I shuttled to D.C. to do the same ole song/dance. Fulfill a bureaucrat's check list by making my research FIT a current Washington fad or craze of the year..

Fun ain't it? I walked out of a meeting in DC last time I was there with some folks. Getting held up for a feasibility study that ONLY a certain company could provide was more than I could stomach.

Haven't been back since.

 

[320 Years of History]

That concept of Directed Investigation is not preposterous at all. If you study sea slugs and need grant money to survive you will be told there isn't any or not much at all. But if you can make the case that your precious sea slugs are gonna shortly be victims of GWarming -- WELL AHA !!! That's a different story. And all ya gotta do is please the sponsor by repeating the mantra in your Abstract and Press Releases -- and the pot of gold is yours.

So -- who is HANDING OUT these giant pots of GW research money? Largely NOAA and NASA and the other govt "science" agencies. And who do they need to please in order to refill the gold pots every year? The Prez and political caucauses who are out telling America that GW is the greatest threat to their future survival.

It's EXTREMELY political. And as a researcher, I shuttled to D.C. to do the same ole song/dance. Fulfill a bureaucrat's check list by making my research FIT a current Washington fad or craze of the year..

Well, yes, and if we were talking about whether sea slugs are in danger from global warming/climate change, I'd share one's concern. The story of the sea slug researcher is:

1. I want to study sea slugs and so I do, but oh, look here, there aren't so many sea slugs around to study now as there were when I first figured out was "nuts" about sea slugs. Why?
2. Maybe it's because there are a lot of starfish eating them. Let me see if I can get some grant money and go find out if there are hordes of starfish chopping on my precious little sea slugs.
3. Hi,Mr. NOAA Moneybags. I've been looking at sea slugs and I can't find many. They seem to be disappearing. I want some of your money to figure out why. How about it?
4. Well, Mr. Slug Researcher, I have to be honest, nobody but you gives a rat's ass about sea slugs. Even I don't care about them. So just to find out "what's up" with the sea slugs, I'm not going to fund that. Now I do have a thing that I do need to figure out and you might be able to help with. You see the folks over at NASA have figured out that the planet is warming up, ice shelves and glaciers are melting and all sorts of other stuff is happening to the environment. Some folks say that the warming is why it's happening. Now if you can find a way to craft your study to find out (1) if the ocean where sea slugs live is indeed warming and (2) in what way that warming affects your beloved sea slugs and why, and (3) identify why we should give a damn about the friggin' sea slug in the first place, well, then I could give you some money for that.

Now when the researcher opts to somewhat adjust the aim of his study -- to learn what impact the warming has on the slugs -- that's hardly the same thing as his conducting a study that has a predefined outcome -- showing that the warming has an impact on sea slugs. I realize that distinction is subtle, but it's quite an important one.

On the matter of climate change, though I may find it important that sea slugs, or polar bears, or whatever don't go extinct, and while I may understand their role in the ecosystem, the creature for which I want to ensure (if at all possible) that climate change has the least or no impact on is humans. Organizations like NASA that are providing first hand evidence that things are happening to the environment -- things like glaciers melting, ice shelves falling off the land to which they are attached, or worldwide temperatures rising in the "wrong" places and falling in the "wrong" places -- have observed that climate change is happening. Our sea slug researcher is just discussing one impact of it happening.

I realize that the sea slug researcher may have to pander to NOAA or NASA to get his grant money, but NASA and NOAA don't have to pander to anyone. They just have to collect and publish the data, perhaps provide projections of what will happen if the phenomena shown by the data continue, and look for why the noted events are happening at all.

Sea slugs (or a host of other plants or critters) may be disappearing because, say, oceans are warming, which in turn boosts starfish populations, which in turn means more sea slugs end up as starfish dinners, and that's just awful, for the sea slugs and sea slug researcher. But oceans are not warming because there are fewer sea slugs (or any other creature) in them.

The problem, the one that matters most, is not that sea slugs (or whatever critter) are disappearing; the problem is that the planet is warming at a rate that is faster than it would do were we not pumping so much GHG into its atmosphere. At least that's what NASA/NOAA have determined. Those agencies have been saying that during Republican and Democratic held presidential administrations and Congresses. I think that when NASA and NOAA conduct their own investigations, it's to determine what is happening and why. The "what" that is happening -- climate change -- is significant enough that its impact of it on polar bears and sea slugs pales in comparison, in my mind at least, to the potential impact it will have on humanity. The various critters just happen to be more susceptible to the change than are humans.

Though I don't work in the science industry, I am quite familiar with directed studies. I've had potential and existing client execs approach me saying essentially, "I think we (his/her company) need to do X, but I need to convince "the powers that be" that there's a business case for doing it. I want to pay you to come in and perform a case study that shows we need to do X. You'll then get the engagement to implement X as well.

I can't speak for everyone in my industry who perform independent case studies, but I can tell you what my reply to that request was. "I'd be glad to do a case study for you, but what we find is what we find. I can't guarantee you that we'll find that what you feel is the appropriate course of action is the one we recommend most highly or that we even recommend it at all. So as much as I would love to earn $60M - $100M in fees, I cannot in good conscience promise the outcome you want will be the outcome we discover and recommend. I can't because once the initiative is done and your company has spent that money, if you don't realize something like the projected outcomes, it won't be just your reputation that goes down the crapper. Your peers will be pissed too, and they'll talk about and say "So and so" are crooks, and that will compromise my ability to sign deals with them. Your $100M is a lot of money, but it won't last forever."

 

[320 Years of History]

You didn't even read that report did you? The answer is right in front of you. They tell you that the increase is "unprecedented", and show you the graph to illustrate it over the last 800,000 years. I suggest you use your eyes and look at the 400,000 year mark. Looks eerily familiar doesn't it?

Even more interesting is the spike at around the 150,000 year mark. Kinda kills their 4 to 7 degree variation comment doesn't it?

Oh, and why stop at the 800,000 year mark? That in an of itself is an interesting question if you think about it.

As to who requested it....who pays NASA's bills?

Actually I did read it. What I read was this:

The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.​

I ask you, did you read it or just look at the pictures?


One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
― George W. Bush

 

[320 Years of History]

Fun ain't it? I walked out of a meeting in DC last time I was there with some folks. Getting held up for a feasibility study that ONLY a certain company could provide was more than I could stomach.

Haven't been back since.

I'm not sure what "getting held up" means relative to your visit to D.C.

You can gripe all you want about the federal procurement process. There is much not to like about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

That concept of Directed Investigation is not preposterous at all. If you study sea slugs and need grant money to survive you will be told there isn't any or not much at all. But if you can make the case that your precious sea slugs are gonna shortly be victims of GWarming -- WELL AHA !!! That's a different story. And all ya gotta do is please the sponsor by repeating the mantra in your Abstract and Press Releases -- and the pot of gold is yours.

So -- who is HANDING OUT these giant pots of GW research money? Largely NOAA and NASA and the other govt "science" agencies. And who do they need to please in order to refill the gold pots every year? The Prez and political caucauses who are out telling America that GW is the greatest threat to their future survival.

It's EXTREMELY political. And as a researcher, I shuttled to D.C. to do the same ole song/dance. Fulfill a bureaucrat's check list by making my research FIT a current Washington fad or craze of the year..

Well, yes, and if we were talking about whether sea slugs are in danger from global warming/climate change, I'd share one's concern. The story of the sea slug researcher is:

1. I want to study sea slugs and so I do, but oh, look here, there aren't so many sea slugs around to study now as there were when I first figured out was "nuts" about sea slugs. Why?
2. Maybe it's because there are a lot of starfish eating them. Let me see if I can get some grant money and go find out if there are hordes of starfish chopping on my precious little sea slugs.
3. Hi,Mr. NOAA Moneybags. I've been looking at sea slugs and I can't find many. They seem to be disappearing. I want some of your money to figure out why. How about it?
4. Well, Mr. Slug Researcher, I have to be honest, nobody but you gives a rat's ass about sea slugs. Even I don't care about them. So just to find out "what's up" with the sea slugs, I'm not going to fund that. Now I do have a thing that I do need to figure out and you might be able to help with. You see the folks over at NASA have figured out that the planet is warming up, ice shelves and glaciers are melting and all sorts of other stuff is happening to the environment. Some folks say that the warming is why it's happening. Now if you can find a way to craft your study to find out (1) if the ocean where sea slugs live is indeed warming and (2) in what way that warming affects your beloved sea slugs and why, and (3) identify why we should give a damn about the friggin' sea slug in the first place, well, then I could give you some money for that.

Now when the researcher opts to somewhat adjust the aim of his study -- to learn what impact the warming has on the slugs -- that's hardly the same thing as his conducting a study that has a predefined outcome -- showing that the warming has an impact on sea slugs. I realize that distinction is subtle, but it's quite an important one.

On the matter of climate change, though I may find it important that sea slugs, or polar bears, or whatever don't go extinct, and while I may understand their role in the ecosystem, the creature for which I want to ensure (if at all possible) that climate change has the least or no impact on is humans. Organizations like NASA that are providing first hand evidence that things are happening to the environment -- things like glaciers melting, ice shelves falling off the land to which they are attached, or worldwide temperatures rising in the "wrong" places and falling in the "wrong" places -- have observed that climate change is happening. Our sea slug researcher is just discussing one impact of it happening.

I realize that the sea slug researcher may have to pander to NOAA or NASA to get his grant money, but NASA and NOAA don't have to pander to anyone. They just have to collect and publish the data, perhaps provide projections of what will happen if the phenomena shown by the data continue, and look for why the noted events are happening at all.

Sea slugs (or a host of other plants or critters) may be disappearing because, say, oceans are warming, which in turn boosts starfish populations, which in turn means more sea slugs end up as starfish dinners, and that's just awful, for the sea slugs and sea slug researcher. But oceans are not warming because there are fewer sea slugs (or any other creature) in them.

The problem, the one that matters most, is not that sea slugs (or whatever critter) are disappearing; the problem is that the planet is warming at a rate that is faster than it would do were we not pumping so much GHG into its atmosphere. At least that's what NASA/NOAA have determined. Those agencies have been saying that during Republican and Democratic held presidential administrations and Congresses. I think that when NASA and NOAA conduct their own investigations, it's to determine what is happening and why. The "what" that is happening -- climate change -- is significant enough that its impact of it on polar bears and sea slugs pales in comparison, in my mind at least, to the potential impact it will have on humanity. The various critters just happen to be more susceptible to the change than are humans.

Though I don't work in the science industry, I am quite familiar with directed studies. I've had potential and existing client execs approach me saying essentially, "I think we (his/her company) need to do X, but I need to convince "the powers that be" that there's a business case for doing it. I want to pay you to come in and perform a case study that shows we need to do X. You'll then get the engagement to implement X as well.

I can't speak for everyone in my industry who perform independent case studies, but I can tell you what my reply to that request was. "I'd be glad to do a case study for you, but what we find is what we find. I can't guarantee you that we'll find that what you feel is the appropriate course of action is the one we recommend most highly or that we even recommend it at all. So as much as I would love to earn $60M - $100M in fees, I cannot in good conscience promise the outcome you want will be the outcome we discover and recommend. I can't because once the initiative is done and your company has spent that money, if you don't realize something like the projected outcomes, it won't be just your reputation that goes down the crapper. Your peers will be pissed too, and they'll talk about and say "So and so" are crooks, and that will compromise my ability to sign deals with them. Your $100M is a lot of money, but it won't last forever."

I've read MANY papers and reports in full on sea life that were paid for by GW money. There's an abstract that casts a few choice token words grandizing the impacts of GW (not supported in the paper) a few references to what researchers say MIGHT HAPPEN and then a statement of their work. INSIDE -- the science usually acknowledges how LITTLE IS KNOWN about this specie and what the NATURAL VARIATIONS of it's enviro are. But in the conclusion section --- they will step up to the ass that fed them and make outrageous claims about the dire consequences of GW so that the check will clear.

There's one HYSTERICAL study where NOAA commissioned researchers to try and KILL juvenile oysters with doses of CO2 influenced "acidic" water. As the study progressed and the results were less than spectacular, I got ahold of their progress reports -- in which NOAA directed them to use EVER INCREASING doses of CO2. Until it reached comic proportions where the doses were 4 times what the predicted "ocean acidification" would be in 2100 under worse case conditions.

INSIDE that report -- they reported SEVERE problems with CO2 water concentrations LESS than current values or pre-industrial values. They also never directly tied ANY ill effects to REALISTIC doses of CO2 induced acidity. But the same ass-kissing abstract and conclusions were there to make HEADLINES and push the circus forward.

Same with studies on metabolism of squid that I've read. Same with studies of estuary life..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Anthony Watts didn't make the list
Freeman Dyson didn't make the list
John Christy, Judith Curry,and Richard Lindzen didn't either

 

[9aces]

Fun ain't it? I walked out of a meeting in DC last time I was there with some folks. Getting held up for a feasibility study that ONLY a certain company could provide was more than I could stomach.

Haven't been back since.

I'm not sure what "getting held up" means relative to your visit to D.C.

You can gripe all you want about the federal procurement process. There is much not to like about it.

Since you apparently haven't actually been through the process. Requiring a feasibility study from only a certain firm, when you already have 2 extensive studies included in the brief has one purpose. It's so the person you're talking to can get their kickback from said company.

This is standard process all the way up to undersecretary positions.

 

[9aces]

You didn't even read that report did you? The answer is right in front of you. They tell you that the increase is "unprecedented", and show you the graph to illustrate it over the last 800,000 years. I suggest you use your eyes and look at the 400,000 year mark. Looks eerily familiar doesn't it?

Even more interesting is the spike at around the 150,000 year mark. Kinda kills their 4 to 7 degree variation comment doesn't it?

Oh, and why stop at the 800,000 year mark? That in an of itself is an interesting question if you think about it.

As to who requested it....who pays NASA's bills?

Actually I did read it. What I read was this:

The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.​

I ask you, did you read it or just look at the pictures?


One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
― George W. Bush

Went right over your head. Unsurprising really.

Now, both look at the graph they provide...AND read the words associated with them.

In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

You're taking this to mean that this is a unique event, because that's how they're presenting the information in the write-up. They depend on the lemmings not to see the forest AND the trees.

Is that rate of increase they reference a unique event. No, if you look at the data, the graph's an easier reference, but the proof's in the pudding if you want to look there too, you'll see several events throughout history which reflect rapid increases, the one 150,000ish years ago actually looks like a more rapid increase that peaks higher.

All without man's influence, imagine that.

It would probably help your case a lot if your so called experts could manage to get a prediction right, on just a short term basis.

Back in the day we used to call what they're doing....guessing.