Dear NASA, do scientists agree on climate change?

[Porker]

this guy Porker can't be taken seriously

But this guy Dante can be take seriously. As a seriously retarded liberal. The kind of serious liberal described so seriously in my sig line below.

 

[Steven_R]

I don't think it's a question of whether or not scientists believe climate is changing. It does and always has and always will. Climate simply isn't static. We've had periods of history when the entire Earth was tropical (and 30 or so degrees hotter than now) and periods where the entire planet was icebound (see also: Snowball Earth) and humans weren't a part of the equation. The question is just how much of the current climate change is natural and how much (if any) is anthropogenic in nature. How much is solar, how much if just the nature of the carbon cycle, how much is air and water current related, how much is due to outgassing and volcanism, how much is a function of plant life to land area, so on and so forth?

The next question is what can humans do to stop our contribution AND maintain our standards of living? We're not giving up cars, electricity, manufacturing, and extracting resources, so what is the solution? Coal, oil, and gas fired power is bad, solar and wind are destructive (and inefficient) and nobody wants nuclear because of scaremongering. Even if some solution is agreed upon, it would be decades before there is some widespread implementation. So now what? And that's before we even get into the politics of climate change and how some see it as an opportunity to raise taxes and/or exert more control over economies.

Steven_R

Speaking of NASA: Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

I don't have a position. I'm neither a climatologist nor an environmental scientist. I'm not familiar with either the literature or cutting edge research in either field. But I am concerned that the actual science may be distorted by an alarmist media and/or people with an agenda, especially given such a complicated system as the climate.

Before we start gutting economies and telling people no more central heat and air, I want to know what the plan is. Before we kill off every coal plant in the US and Europe, what is the plan for India and China? Before we mandate permanent rolling blackouts to save Mother Gaea, do we know that AGW is the cause of climate change and not just a minority contributor? What's the overall goal we're aiming for? Little Ice Age or Little Heat Wave or what?

 

[orogenicman]

So, we are supposed to take the word of Walter Cunningham, a fine astronaut, for sure, but someone who doesn't know diddly about climatology? Same for the rest of your former NASA schmucks. Probably why none of them have taken Dr. Waleed Abdalati up on his challenge.

Well OK...let me think about this for a second. OK, I'm done thinking about it. I figure Walter Cunningham has more scientific training than I ever had. And I (that would be me, myself, Porker) have been more correct than any of those 97% of the scientific community THAT TOLD US HOW WE ARE GOING TO BURN THE HELL UP in the next 20 years back in 1984. We didn't and I was correct.

Science is not conducted by gathering up all your like minded buddies and writing a letter to the Administrator of NASA. It is conducted by conducting legitimate scientific research and then allowing one's peers to review that work and determine its validity. Got any evidence that any of these former NASA people did any of that with respect to the conclusions they came to in their letter/rant?

And algore WAS WRONG.

And we all know what an expert algore is/was.

Ron's law (similar to Godwin's law, except applied to threads in which Al Gore's Name is used in an argument). You lose.

 

[Porker]

Ron ain't making the laws darwin fan.

ALgore BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

 

[Dante]

I don't think it's a question of whether or not scientists believe climate is changing. It does and always has and always will. Climate simply isn't static. We've had periods of history when the entire Earth was tropical (and 30 or so degrees hotter than now) and periods where the entire planet was icebound (see also: Snowball Earth) and humans weren't a part of the equation. The question is just how much of the current climate change is natural and how much (if any) is anthropogenic in nature. How much is solar, how much if just the nature of the carbon cycle, how much is air and water current related, how much is due to outgassing and volcanism, how much is a function of plant life to land area, so on and so forth?

The next question is what can humans do to stop our contribution AND maintain our standards of living? We're not giving up cars, electricity, manufacturing, and extracting resources, so what is the solution? Coal, oil, and gas fired power is bad, solar and wind are destructive (and inefficient) and nobody wants nuclear because of scaremongering. Even if some solution is agreed upon, it would be decades before there is some widespread implementation. So now what? And that's before we even get into the politics of climate change and how some see it as an opportunity to raise taxes and/or exert more control over economies.

Steven_R

Speaking of NASA: Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

I don't have a position. I'm neither a climatologist nor an environmental scientist. I'm not familiar with either the literature or cutting edge research in either field. But I am concerned that the actual science may be distorted by an alarmist media and/or people with an agenda, especially given such a complicated system as the climate.

Before we start gutting economies and telling people no more central heat and air, I want to know what the plan is. Before we kill off every coal plant in the US and Europe, what is the plan for India and China? Before we mandate permanent rolling blackouts to save Mother Gaea, do we know that AGW is the cause of climate change and not just a minority contributor? What's the overall goal we're aiming for? Little Ice Age or Little Heat Wave or what?

A few straw men and lots of hyperbole? by your own words -- you're a coward. You have a position, you're just afraid to fact the fact that you have your head in the sand.

You refuse to speak it out loud because you know it will make you look as foolish as you know you are: You refuse to believe the science NASA puts forward on climate change and global warming..

Who has proposed gutting our economy (put aside your supposed concern for the others)? Who has proposed telling people no more heat and air conditioning? Who has proposed killing off all those coal plants?

Coward!

 

[cnm]

Let's review: Chinese scientists demonstrated that the AGWCult models are 100% wrong, the AGWCult been caught fudging the data so many times that all their reported data must be suspect, they intimidate, harass and threaten any scientists who dares to questions their "Consensus" and they've never once demonstrated how their absurd theory is supposed to work. Nevertheless, they are paid to soldier on

Thanks for the link backing up your assertions. What's that you say? There is no link?

Well who'd have thought.

 

[cnm]

marchy: I've told you; you will get your hands dirty if you keep dabbling in this shit!!

But you still won't have worked out how to link.

 

[cnm]

And I (that would be me, myself, Porker) have been more correct than any of those 97% of the scientific community THAT TOLD US HOW WE ARE GOING TO BURN THE HELL UP in the next 20 years back in 1984. We didn't and I was correct. And algore WAS WRONG.

And we all know what an expert algore is/was.

You mistake Al Gore for 97% of climate scientists. So when does the next ice age start?

 

[cnm]

The question is just how much of the current climate change is natural and how much (if any) is anthropogenic in nature.

The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. If one can't accept that consensus one might as well say so.

 

[Porker]

You mistake Al Gore for 97% of climate scientists. So when does the next ice age start?

Let's take a closer look at where this bullshit claim originated...

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Excerpt: the entire article is at the link above...

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

I'll throw another possibility (probability) out for the liberal media reporting this 97% mistake over and over and over. They were INTENTIONALLY LYING FOR ALGORE AND HIS GD CRONIES.

 

[gtopa1]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.

I assume that you will support that contention with facts. link!!

Greg

gtopa1

Is it your position that the NASA science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

I have described it as wrong, self serving, unscientific, cult, distorted, biased, anti-American, anti-humanity, anti-development, pro-Neanderthal and many others but never as "bunk"...but it would be wrong to say that there is not a great deal of great science going on...there is. The models are incredible but it is the human factor I question, the selectivity of data sets and the "rounding down" and "corrections" which seem ever to point in the one direction.....hotter now than ever. But my real concern is about alarmism....I am very concerned about many issues but the climate catastrophe predicted by alarmists is not one of them. I want to see better land management, more recycling, nuclear fusion power generation, more trees and green areas, less poverty etc etc...all the stuff we talked about in the 70s that would make a better world, less divorce. ...and larger families!!!

Greg

 

[Porker]

Another source debunking the 97% bullshit...

Debunking 97 Climate Consensus Denial

excerpt...

The second error has been made by individuals claiming they're in the 97%, but failing to actually check the data. For example, Roy Spencer claimed in testimony to US Congressthat he is included in the 97% consensus. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence. Thus Spencer's research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming. Bjorn Lomborg made a similar error, claiming:

"Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)."

 

[gtopa1]

I don't think it's a question of whether or not scientists believe climate is changing. It does and always has and always will. Climate simply isn't static. We've had periods of history when the entire Earth was tropical (and 30 or so degrees hotter than now) and periods where the entire planet was icebound (see also: Snowball Earth) and humans weren't a part of the equation. The question is just how much of the current climate change is natural and how much (if any) is anthropogenic in nature. How much is solar, how much if just the nature of the carbon cycle, how much is air and water current related, how much is due to outgassing and volcanism, how much is a function of plant life to land area, so on and so forth?

The next question is what can humans do to stop our contribution AND maintain our standards of living? We're not giving up cars, electricity, manufacturing, and extracting resources, so what is the solution? Coal, oil, and gas fired power is bad, solar and wind are destructive (and inefficient) and nobody wants nuclear because of scaremongering. Even if some solution is agreed upon, it would be decades before there is some widespread implementation. So now what? And that's before we even get into the politics of climate change and how some see it as an opportunity to raise taxes and/or exert more control over economies.

Steven_R

Speaking of NASA: Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?

Hansen is NOT Nasa!!! He is an alarmist and a cultist. I don't trust ANY of his interpretations or projections!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Where is THAT presented as the "consensus"??

The question is just how much of the current climate change is natural and how much (if any) is anthropogenic in nature.

The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. If one can't accept that consensus one might as well say so.

There are more consensed ideas than the bloody questions asked!! I accept that the earth is warming...has done since the 1700s but with times of cooling as well...but I have very little faith in the suggestion that it is because of burning coal or farting cows!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

this guy Porker can't be taken seriously

But this guy Dante can be take seriously. As a seriously retarded liberal. The kind of serious liberal described so seriously in my sig line below.

This may be so, but it is wrong to mock the retarded for their affliction.

Greg

 

[Porker]

this guy Porker can't be taken seriously

But this guy Dante can be take seriously. As a seriously retarded liberal. The kind of serious liberal described so seriously in my sig line below.

This may be so, but it is wrong to mock the retarded for their affliction.

Greg

I'm not mocking anyone...Dante would be the first to tell you he's not retarded...just, just...well yes he is retarded as are most liberals.

 

[Vigilante]

2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures.

Roy Spencer PhD. blog ^

OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response. Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on Dec. 4. In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have...

 

[orogenicman]

You mistake Al Gore for 97% of climate scientists. So when does the next ice age start?

Let's take a closer look at where this bullshit claim originated...

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Excerpt: the entire article is at the link above...

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

I'll throw another possibility (probability) out for the liberal media reporting this 97% mistake over and over and over. They were INTENTIONALLY LYING FOR ALGORE AND HIS GD CRONIES.

Ahem.

"James Taylor

I write about energy and environment issues. Full Bio «

I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute."

This is the best you can do? Really?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.

Now Sweetie Pie, that lie has been debunked so many times. The majority of scientific papers that addressed that issue at that time stated that they expected warming.

Hey genius, CO2, or carbon dioxide, is responsible for 85% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. That's what you useful idiots are always clamoring about yes? Greenhouse gases? Furthermore, carbon monoxide (CO) levels weren't even a consideration in "smog tests," since the electronic fuel injection systems in all modern vehicles have only an adjustment on the control box -usually a small recessed hex screw- to set CO2 levels, which in turn regulate noxious exhaust gas levels. The only way you can regulate carbon monoxide levels is by setting the carbon dioxide level. They go hand-in-hand. What do you drive, man? An '87 Chevy held together by rust? And you're a self-appointed expert in "global warming?" God help us.

 

[Porker]

Ahem.

"James Taylor

I write about energy and environment issues. Full Bio «

I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute."

This is the best you can do? Really?

Naa, I much prefer DR. Roy Spencer and all his friend that say the 97 or 98% claim by you goreist is total bullshit...

2014 as the Mildest Year Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures Roy Spencer PhD

This one ain't bad either...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/