MIT’s Dr. Lindzen Pokes Fun At The ‘Naïve’, Well-Funded ‘Scientific Reasoning’ That 1 Factor – CO2 – Controls Climate

But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.

Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.

Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.

1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

.

We seem to be speaking half-truths to each other ... I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire ... G x m x M/R = m x Vesc^2/2 => Vesc =(2GM/R)^0.5 ... but it's just a simple quadratic equation any 14-year-old child can be expected to solve ... your post above is absent any comment to this effect, thus seems to be a strawman argument: I never said the technology was easy, why are you arguing that the technology is difficult? ...

Now, I've rolled so many damn trusses in my life I could build them in my sleep ... does that make my qualified to comment on engineered trusses? ... hell no, I'm not an engineer ... I certainly have opinions about how to build trusses, but when the building inspector comes along, he's going to have to see the engineer's embossing on the truss plan, or we'll fail inspection ... NASA launches the satellite and they get the data first and then pass it on to the owners ... part of the agreement is to let NASA play with the data, and sure, they'll hire a few climatologist to interpret the data ...

Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...

The owners of these climate satellites are more science driven than technology ... many of the thermometers NOAA uses are almost unchanged since the 18th Century ... mercury in a sealed tube ... (note that NASA doesn't own any thermometer networks anywhere on Earth, not a single one) ... the mistake almost everybody makes, including NASA, is they think surface weather is everything, when in fact it's hardly anything ... boundary layer friction is about all ... another fact is that satellites are piss poor at resolving spacial features, yes, the atmosphere is three dimensional, and so are all things climate ...

The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

When so much is unknown ... any discussion will involve a conservative position and a liberal position, and an entire spectrum of positions in between .. and ALL within the science of the matter ... with this statement, you take on the "hypercanes and hockey sticks" mentality ... we don't know the answers so they must be bad ... simply because you confine yourself to just one side of the debate ... worse still you seem to get your information from the National Enquirer who just write a check to get someone to make outrageous claims ... on the other side are all the Atmospheric Scientists who were kicked off the IPCC for pointing out their assumptions were not valid ... no one is going to pay anything to hear that it's far too soon to say climate will change, we flat don't know due to a lack of data ... with only 50 years of hurricane data, only a fool would try and predict hurricane activity 100 years hence ...

Statistics are easy to manipulate ... common in the CCC crazies is the technique of restricting the sample pool to drive up probabilities ... ask me sometime, I'll show you that, statistically, the single most violent nation on the face of the planet, far and away the most violent, is the United Kingdom ... weird but true ...
 
But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.

Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.

Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.

1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

.

We seem to be speaking half-truths to each other ... I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire ... G x m x M/R = m x Vesc^2/2 => Vesc =(2GM/R)^0.5 ... but it's just a simple quadratic equation any 14-year-old child can be expected to solve ... your post above is absent any comment to this effect, thus seems to be a strawman argument: I never said the technology was easy, why are you arguing that the technology is difficult? ...

Now, I've rolled so many damn trusses in my life I could build them in my sleep ... does that make my qualified to comment on engineered trusses? ... hell no, I'm not an engineer ... I certainly have opinions about how to build trusses, but when the building inspector comes along, he's going to have to see the engineer's embossing on the truss plan, or we'll fail inspection ... NASA launches the satellite and they get the data first and then pass it on to the owners ... part of the agreement is to let NASA play with the data, and sure, they'll hire a few climatologist to interpret the data ...

Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...

The owners of these climate satellites are more science driven than technology ... many of the thermometers NOAA uses are almost unchanged since the 18th Century ... mercury in a sealed tube ... (note that NASA doesn't own any thermometer networks anywhere on Earth, not a single one) ... the mistake almost everybody makes, including NASA, is they think surface weather is everything, when in fact it's hardly anything ... boundary layer friction is about all ... another fact is that satellites are piss poor at resolving spacial features, yes, the atmosphere is three dimensional, and so are all things climate ...

The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

When so much is unknown ... any discussion will involve a conservative position and a liberal position, and an entire spectrum of positions in between .. and ALL within the science of the matter ... with this statement, you take on the "hypercanes and hockey sticks" mentality ... we don't know the answers so they must be bad ... simply because you confine yourself to just one side of the debate ... worse still you seem to get your information from the National Enquirer who just write a check to get someone to make outrageous claims ... on the other side are all the Atmospheric Scientists who were kicked off the IPCC for pointing out their assumptions were not valid ... no one is going to pay anything to hear that it's far too soon to say climate will change, we flat don't know due to a lack of data ... with only 50 years of hurricane data, only a fool would try and predict hurricane activity 100 years hence ...

Statistics are easy to manipulate ... common in the CCC crazies is the technique of restricting the sample pool to drive up probabilities ... ask me sometime, I'll show you that, statistically, the single most violent nation on the face of the planet, far and away the most violent, is the United Kingdom ... weird but true ...

I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire

Still if you do not know that NASA has climate satellites in orbit then it clear you are just using false logic.

I would suggest you look it up before posting.
 
But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.

Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.

Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.

1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

.

We seem to be speaking half-truths to each other ... I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire ... G x m x M/R = m x Vesc^2/2 => Vesc =(2GM/R)^0.5 ... but it's just a simple quadratic equation any 14-year-old child can be expected to solve ... your post above is absent any comment to this effect, thus seems to be a strawman argument: I never said the technology was easy, why are you arguing that the technology is difficult? ...

Now, I've rolled so many damn trusses in my life I could build them in my sleep ... does that make my qualified to comment on engineered trusses? ... hell no, I'm not an engineer ... I certainly have opinions about how to build trusses, but when the building inspector comes along, he's going to have to see the engineer's embossing on the truss plan, or we'll fail inspection ... NASA launches the satellite and they get the data first and then pass it on to the owners ... part of the agreement is to let NASA play with the data, and sure, they'll hire a few climatologist to interpret the data ...

Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...

The owners of these climate satellites are more science driven than technology ... many of the thermometers NOAA uses are almost unchanged since the 18th Century ... mercury in a sealed tube ... (note that NASA doesn't own any thermometer networks anywhere on Earth, not a single one) ... the mistake almost everybody makes, including NASA, is they think surface weather is everything, when in fact it's hardly anything ... boundary layer friction is about all ... another fact is that satellites are piss poor at resolving spacial features, yes, the atmosphere is three dimensional, and so are all things climate ...

The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

When so much is unknown ... any discussion will involve a conservative position and a liberal position, and an entire spectrum of positions in between .. and ALL within the science of the matter ... with this statement, you take on the "hypercanes and hockey sticks" mentality ... we don't know the answers so they must be bad ... simply because you confine yourself to just one side of the debate ... worse still you seem to get your information from the National Enquirer who just write a check to get someone to make outrageous claims ... on the other side are all the Atmospheric Scientists who were kicked off the IPCC for pointing out their assumptions were not valid ... no one is going to pay anything to hear that it's far too soon to say climate will change, we flat don't know due to a lack of data ... with only 50 years of hurricane data, only a fool would try and predict hurricane activity 100 years hence ...

Statistics are easy to manipulate ... common in the CCC crazies is the technique of restricting the sample pool to drive up probabilities ... ask me sometime, I'll show you that, statistically, the single most violent nation on the face of the planet, far and away the most violent, is the United Kingdom ... weird but true ...

I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire

Still if you do not know that NASA has climate satellites in orbit then it clear you are just using false logic.

I would suggest you look it up before posting.

Yeah the same NASA that likes to ignore the Satellite data in favor of PISS temperature data that gets changed a lot over time.

:rolleyes:
 
But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.

Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.

Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.

1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

.

We seem to be speaking half-truths to each other ... I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire ... G x m x M/R = m x Vesc^2/2 => Vesc =(2GM/R)^0.5 ... but it's just a simple quadratic equation any 14-year-old child can be expected to solve ... your post above is absent any comment to this effect, thus seems to be a strawman argument: I never said the technology was easy, why are you arguing that the technology is difficult? ...

Now, I've rolled so many damn trusses in my life I could build them in my sleep ... does that make my qualified to comment on engineered trusses? ... hell no, I'm not an engineer ... I certainly have opinions about how to build trusses, but when the building inspector comes along, he's going to have to see the engineer's embossing on the truss plan, or we'll fail inspection ... NASA launches the satellite and they get the data first and then pass it on to the owners ... part of the agreement is to let NASA play with the data, and sure, they'll hire a few climatologist to interpret the data ...

Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...

The owners of these climate satellites are more science driven than technology ... many of the thermometers NOAA uses are almost unchanged since the 18th Century ... mercury in a sealed tube ... (note that NASA doesn't own any thermometer networks anywhere on Earth, not a single one) ... the mistake almost everybody makes, including NASA, is they think surface weather is everything, when in fact it's hardly anything ... boundary layer friction is about all ... another fact is that satellites are piss poor at resolving spacial features, yes, the atmosphere is three dimensional, and so are all things climate ...

The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

When so much is unknown ... any discussion will involve a conservative position and a liberal position, and an entire spectrum of positions in between .. and ALL within the science of the matter ... with this statement, you take on the "hypercanes and hockey sticks" mentality ... we don't know the answers so they must be bad ... simply because you confine yourself to just one side of the debate ... worse still you seem to get your information from the National Enquirer who just write a check to get someone to make outrageous claims ... on the other side are all the Atmospheric Scientists who were kicked off the IPCC for pointing out their assumptions were not valid ... no one is going to pay anything to hear that it's far too soon to say climate will change, we flat don't know due to a lack of data ... with only 50 years of hurricane data, only a fool would try and predict hurricane activity 100 years hence ...

Statistics are easy to manipulate ... common in the CCC crazies is the technique of restricting the sample pool to drive up probabilities ... ask me sometime, I'll show you that, statistically, the single most violent nation on the face of the planet, far and away the most violent, is the United Kingdom ... weird but true ...

I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire

Still if you do not know that NASA has climate satellites in orbit then it clear you are just using false logic.

I would suggest you look it up before posting.

Yeah the same NASA that likes to ignore the Satellite data in favor of PISS temperature data that gets changed a lot over time.

:rolleyes:.
'

No its the same as your fascination with PISS temperature data and then relating it to a discussion of NASA climate data
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.

Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.

Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.

1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

.

We seem to be speaking half-truths to each other ... I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire ... G x m x M/R = m x Vesc^2/2 => Vesc =(2GM/R)^0.5 ... but it's just a simple quadratic equation any 14-year-old child can be expected to solve ... your post above is absent any comment to this effect, thus seems to be a strawman argument: I never said the technology was easy, why are you arguing that the technology is difficult? ...

Now, I've rolled so many damn trusses in my life I could build them in my sleep ... does that make my qualified to comment on engineered trusses? ... hell no, I'm not an engineer ... I certainly have opinions about how to build trusses, but when the building inspector comes along, he's going to have to see the engineer's embossing on the truss plan, or we'll fail inspection ... NASA launches the satellite and they get the data first and then pass it on to the owners ... part of the agreement is to let NASA play with the data, and sure, they'll hire a few climatologist to interpret the data ...

Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...

The owners of these climate satellites are more science driven than technology ... many of the thermometers NOAA uses are almost unchanged since the 18th Century ... mercury in a sealed tube ... (note that NASA doesn't own any thermometer networks anywhere on Earth, not a single one) ... the mistake almost everybody makes, including NASA, is they think surface weather is everything, when in fact it's hardly anything ... boundary layer friction is about all ... another fact is that satellites are piss poor at resolving spacial features, yes, the atmosphere is three dimensional, and so are all things climate ...

The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

When so much is unknown ... any discussion will involve a conservative position and a liberal position, and an entire spectrum of positions in between .. and ALL within the science of the matter ... with this statement, you take on the "hypercanes and hockey sticks" mentality ... we don't know the answers so they must be bad ... simply because you confine yourself to just one side of the debate ... worse still you seem to get your information from the National Enquirer who just write a check to get someone to make outrageous claims ... on the other side are all the Atmospheric Scientists who were kicked off the IPCC for pointing out their assumptions were not valid ... no one is going to pay anything to hear that it's far too soon to say climate will change, we flat don't know due to a lack of data ... with only 50 years of hurricane data, only a fool would try and predict hurricane activity 100 years hence ...

Statistics are easy to manipulate ... common in the CCC crazies is the technique of restricting the sample pool to drive up probabilities ... ask me sometime, I'll show you that, statistically, the single most violent nation on the face of the planet, far and away the most violent, is the United Kingdom ... weird but true ...

I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire

Still if you do not know that NASA has climate satellites in orbit then it clear you are just using false logic.

I would suggest you look it up before posting.

Yeah the same NASA that likes to ignore the Satellite data in favor of PISS temperature data that gets changed a lot over time.

:rolleyes:
'

No its the same as your fascination with PISS temperature data and then relating it to a discussion of NASA climate data.

You posted INSIDE my quote section, please remove it or I report it.
 
But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.

Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.

Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.

1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

.

We seem to be speaking half-truths to each other ... I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire ... G x m x M/R = m x Vesc^2/2 => Vesc =(2GM/R)^0.5 ... but it's just a simple quadratic equation any 14-year-old child can be expected to solve ... your post above is absent any comment to this effect, thus seems to be a strawman argument: I never said the technology was easy, why are you arguing that the technology is difficult? ...

Now, I've rolled so many damn trusses in my life I could build them in my sleep ... does that make my qualified to comment on engineered trusses? ... hell no, I'm not an engineer ... I certainly have opinions about how to build trusses, but when the building inspector comes along, he's going to have to see the engineer's embossing on the truss plan, or we'll fail inspection ... NASA launches the satellite and they get the data first and then pass it on to the owners ... part of the agreement is to let NASA play with the data, and sure, they'll hire a few climatologist to interpret the data ...

Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...

The owners of these climate satellites are more science driven than technology ... many of the thermometers NOAA uses are almost unchanged since the 18th Century ... mercury in a sealed tube ... (note that NASA doesn't own any thermometer networks anywhere on Earth, not a single one) ... the mistake almost everybody makes, including NASA, is they think surface weather is everything, when in fact it's hardly anything ... boundary layer friction is about all ... another fact is that satellites are piss poor at resolving spacial features, yes, the atmosphere is three dimensional, and so are all things climate ...

The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

When so much is unknown ... any discussion will involve a conservative position and a liberal position, and an entire spectrum of positions in between .. and ALL within the science of the matter ... with this statement, you take on the "hypercanes and hockey sticks" mentality ... we don't know the answers so they must be bad ... simply because you confine yourself to just one side of the debate ... worse still you seem to get your information from the National Enquirer who just write a check to get someone to make outrageous claims ... on the other side are all the Atmospheric Scientists who were kicked off the IPCC for pointing out their assumptions were not valid ... no one is going to pay anything to hear that it's far too soon to say climate will change, we flat don't know due to a lack of data ... with only 50 years of hurricane data, only a fool would try and predict hurricane activity 100 years hence ...

Statistics are easy to manipulate ... common in the CCC crazies is the technique of restricting the sample pool to drive up probabilities ... ask me sometime, I'll show you that, statistically, the single most violent nation on the face of the planet, far and away the most violent, is the United Kingdom ... weird but true ...

I already conceded NASA's technological superiority, if we want to put a climate satellite in the proper orbit, NASA are the people to hire

Still if you do not know that NASA has climate satellites in orbit then it clear you are just using false logic.

I would suggest you look it up before posting.

Yeah the same NASA that likes to ignore the Satellite data in favor of PISS temperature data that gets changed a lot over time.

:rolleyes:.
'

No its the same as your fascination with PISS temperature data and then relating it to a discussion of NASA climate data

Translation: I can't address well known PISS data manipulation, because that would destroy the rest of my argument.

GISS is part of NASA.....

:rolleyes:
 
Translation: I can't address well known PISS data manipulation, because that would destroy the rest of my argument.
GISS is part of NASA.....

GISS is an experiment ... the hypothesis is that satellite data and NOAA's data are a good match ... data manipulation is part and parcel of science; and as you said, this manipulation is well documented ... we're still years away from any conclusions ...

NASA's just proposing this idea ... Kilroy2 seems to think it's set in stone already ... I'd like to see his citations, but we both know that's never going to happen ...
 
GISS is an experiment ... the hypothesis is that satellite data and NOAA's data are a good match ... data manipulation is part and parcel of science; and as you said, this manipulation is well documented ... we're still years away from any conclusions ...

NASA's just proposing this idea ... Kilroy2 seems to think it's set in stone already ... I'd like to see his citations, but we both know that's never going to happen ...

The problem is that GISS was originally created to SUPPORT NASA's Space Exploration, but it was sidetracked into a climate research place by congressional mandate in the mid 1990's.

Robert Jastrow was the FOUNDER of GISS, he was all astronomer, ZERO Climatologist.
 
Just like I'm allowed to have opinions about truss design ... NASA is allowed to have their opinions about future climate ... the difference is I tell you I'm an uneducated construction laborer and you'll have to run my opinions by an actual engineer ... NASA waves their arms and shout they're the world's foremost experts in climatology, which they're most profoundly not ...

No they don't. They collect data. They do have an opinion.

You do seem to forget that a majority of climate scientist support the concept of global warming as it relates to human activities. You seem to believe that they manipulate the data to support their position. Yet climate scientist have seen the data and formed an opinion. The overwhelming majority support the notion of global warming that is being cause by man.

.. more than 800 Earth science and energy experts in 46 states have signed an open letter to Donald Trump, urging him to take six key steps to address climate change

We, the undersigned, urge you to take immediate and sustained action against human-caused climate change. We write as concerned individuals, united in recognizing that the science is unequivocal and America must respond. etc, etc

NASA is only part of the equation. I never said that they were the arbitrators in this process. They support the notion.

NASA role is to collect data for use by the public and the government in its policy making.

NASA does not make policies. They do support the call for action in regards to global warming. They have an opinion.

China, India and the US have the most climate satellites in operation, along with multinational collaborations. Climate satellites are launch by the country. I do not believe companies or institutions have the money to pay for a climate satellite. The data is shared.

The Earth Science Division develops and operates satellites and instruments. They analyze observational data and make it available to scientist.

It is the 97 percent peer reviewed studies done by climate scientist (and not NASA) that global warming in the past century is extremely likely caused by human activity. NASA does agree with this assessment. Is it perfect, only time will tell.

Depletion of the ozone from aerosols is caused by man. They took action.

removing lead from gasoline. They took action

Sea levels are rising. NOAA monitors sea levels. They collect data recorded from satellites.

They are sounding the bell. Worst case scenario. People die. Do nothing because you believe this MIT professor. It is easy to poke fun at things but hard to come up with a solution. What data does he have? He has the same data as everyone else. If man is causing damage to the Earth, then it is only man that can correct it. Some would prefer to do nothing. They are the minority.

If you are doing construction and you notice that the other guy is doing something wrong that may cause a problem then you go over there and correct him or her.

You have the construction plans and you follow it. You don't cut corners because it politically convenient. Yeah the building inspector may miss something but that is not a reason to do it.
 
It is the 97 percent peer reviewed studies done by climate scientist (and not NASA) that global warming in the past century is extremely likely caused by human activity.

This is a material falsehood that's been getting passed around ... peer reviewed studies that do not mention whether man is causing global warming or not are counted as positives ...

Meaning if I publish a paper on cold front dynamics along the Great Lakes ... which has nothing to do with climate ... my paper would be counted as fully supporting any and all crazy ... see how stupid that is ...

My question to you is do you believe this catastrophic climate change BS? ... because you sure are pumping out the CO2 trying to get others to believe with you ... seems hypocritical ...
 
Your latest empty post is like all the others here, fails to challenge the paper.
Who needs to challenge the paper? Nobody. You still seem confused about how this works. And anyway, the entire thing is built on a false premise meant to fool morons like you: that scientists believe or claim what it is said they claim in your childish thread title. This guy is a paid liar who is paid to fool idiots like you.
 
It is the 97 percent peer reviewed studies done by climate scientist (and not NASA) that global warming in the past century is extremely likely caused by human activity.







Quote -
My question to you is do you believe this catastrophic climate change BS? ... because you sure are pumping out the CO2 trying to get others to believe with you ... seems hypocritical ...

The statement
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

It does not say that the journals written actually mention "if climate warming trends are caused by human activities" but I would suspect that they do draw conclusions.
Still
It just states that those who are published climate scientist agree that climate warming is likely due to human activities. Indicating that at some point they were asked their opinion on the matter or signed some letter showing support.

Scientific consensus you got to love it.

NOAA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Research Council, and the Environmental Protection Agency have all published reports and fact sheets stating that Earth is warming mainly due to the increase in human-produced heat-trapping gases.

Should I believe the deniers who will find something they do not like and hang their hat on. oh, data manipulation is bad but in an imperfect world it is accounted for and identified. It is bad when the denier just want to focus on what is wrong and want to believe that it is malicious behavior.

The real concern is what man is doing to the environment. It would be hard to control what mother nature does? It is what man adds to what mother nature does?

Some people believe that they are here on the planet for the sole purpose of what and how much they can spew on their own behalf.

Others believe that we are here to preserve and ensure that future generations do not suffer from man made mistakes.

We have to clean up our own mess and not leave it for others to clean up. If you disagree then that is your opinion.
 
Your latest empty post is like all the others here, fails to challenge the paper.
Who needs to challenge the paper? Nobody. You still seem confused about how this works. And anyway, the entire thing is built on a false premise meant to fool morons like you: that scientists believe or claim what it is said they claim in your childish thread title. This guy is a paid liar who is paid to fool idiots like you.

:auiqs.jpg:

Your latest empty post is like all the others here, fails to challenge the paper.

Post one article remains unchallenged.
 
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Post a link to just one of these studies that show 97% agreement ... also please define "actively publishing climate scientists" ... we get a dozen publications every six hours here and none of them mention global warming ... but those are Atmospheric Scientists ... folks who graduated college ...
 
Post a link to just one of these studies that show 97% agreement ... also please define "actively publishing climate scientists" ... we get a dozen publications every six hours here and none of them mention global warming ... but those are Atmospheric Scientists ... folks who graduated college ...

Why would there be a study that shows 97 percent agreement.
if most already agree on the topic


well post a link showing that it is not 97 % if you disagree and explain why.

What the exact number is not the issue. It the scientific consensus. If you do not believe in the scientific consensus then define scientific consensus and tell me why you disagree with it. Scientific consensus could be 70 percent and it is still a consensus. Focus on the exact number is like focusing on the exact number of people waiting in that line when it is obvious that there are a lot of people in line. So keep the line moving.

You say you get a dozen publication every six hours and none of them mention global warming. So what. this debate has been going on for years

lets get to significant stuff

let me ask do you deny the greenhouse gas theory? y or n

Do you deny that the earth is warming? y or n

Do you deny that CO2 has caused warming? y or n
 
Post a link to just one of these studies that show 97% agreement ... also please define "actively publishing climate scientists" ... we get a dozen publications every six hours here and none of them mention global warming ... but those are Atmospheric Scientists ... folks who graduated college ...

Why would there be a study that shows 97 percent agreement.
if most already agree on the topic


well post a link showing that it is not 97 % if you disagree and explain why.

What the exact number is not the issue. It the scientific consensus. If you do not believe in the scientific consensus then define scientific consensus and tell me why you disagree with it. Scientific consensus could be 70 percent and it is still a consensus. Focus on the exact number is like focusing on the exact number of people waiting in that line when it is obvious that there are a lot of people in line. So keep the line moving.

You say you get a dozen publication every six hours and none of them mention global warming. So what. this debate has been going on for years

lets get to significant stuff

let me ask do you deny the greenhouse gas theory? y or n

Do you deny that the earth is warming? y or n

Do you deny that CO2 has caused warming? y or n

:auiqs.jpg:

You can't even answer a simple question....

Now you break out in a sweat trying to divert the discussion.....

It is clear you are a whore for consensus ideology.
 
Ha ha, not a single true counterpoint was made,
Haha, not a single research paper was published. Just a hit and run blog. Will we be featuring a powerpoint of this blog at the next IPCC?

No it is a publish paper at springerlink:
The European Physical Journal Plus volume 135, Article number: 462 (2020) Cite this article
Abstract
The nature of the climate system is reviewed. We then review the history of scientific approaches to major problems in climate, noting that the centrality of the contribution of carbon dioxide is relatively recent, and probably inappropriate to much of the Earth’s climate history. The weakness of characterizing the overall climate behavior using only one physical process, globally averaged radiative forcing, is illustrated by considering the role of an equally well-known process, meridional heat transport by hydrodynamic processes which, by changing the equator-to-pole temperature difference, also impact global mean temperature.

LINK

======

Not a blog at all, you that lazy to look up the link?

The article remains unchallenged.





Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, sent a letter last month to President Donald Trump urging him to pull the United States out of the United Nations' climate change regime because global climate action is "not scientifically justified."

After MIT's climate researchers and faculty found out, they wrote their own open letter to the president, setting the record straight.

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.


So 1 guy vs 22 other guys all from MIT. That is like a 99 percent consensus that he (linden) is a fraud with an audience.

My question is are you the political chick also because you really do sound like her?

Linden is just looking for a job in the Trump administration.
 
Post a link to just one of these studies that show 97% agreement ... also please define "actively publishing climate scientists" ... we get a dozen publications every six hours here and none of them mention global warming ... but those are Atmospheric Scientists ... folks who graduated college ...

Why would there be a study that shows 97 percent agreement.
if most already agree on the topic


well post a link showing that it is not 97 % if you disagree and explain why.

What the exact number is not the issue. It the scientific consensus. If you do not believe in the scientific consensus then define scientific consensus and tell me why you disagree with it. Scientific consensus could be 70 percent and it is still a consensus. Focus on the exact number is like focusing on the exact number of people waiting in that line when it is obvious that there are a lot of people in line. So keep the line moving.

You say you get a dozen publication every six hours and none of them mention global warming. So what. this debate has been going on for years

lets get to significant stuff

let me ask do you deny the greenhouse gas theory? y or n

Do you deny that the earth is warming? y or n

Do you deny that CO2 has caused warming? y or n

:auiqs.jpg:

You can't even answer a simple question....

Now you break out in a sweat trying to divert the discussion.....

It is clear you are a whore for consensus ideology.

You didn't ask a question, you just asked for proof. But proof would not matter to you as answering the 3 question blows your argument to pieces.
Seems you can answer three simple questions.

Be nice it not my fault your a denier and only seek what you already belief.
 

Forum List

Back
Top