Coffeehouse Thread

153 posts

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Proton2 said:

    @eajimefu: NASA scientists have concluded that whatever is happening, it isn't caused by Carbon

    Actually, quite the opposite. NASA is very clear that climate change is happening, we need to do something about it, and the primary cause of current global warming is human emission of carbon dioxide: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903

    Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems and are both due mostly to fossil fuel burning. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximize effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon and carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables, as well as energy efficiency improvements.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    Actually, quite the opposite. NASA is very clear that climate change is happening, we need to do something about it, and the primary cause of current global warming is human emission of carbon dioxide: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903

    *snip*

    Your evidence doesn't count because it doesn't reference the name of a famous book or movie.

    Try again when you have access to better PR.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    In fact, not only does NASA think that it's happening - these 200 other national or international scientific organisations think so too.

    That's because 97% of climate scientists agree: climate change is real, it's happening, and it's because of man-made CO2 emissions. (Oh - and yes btw that 97% figure is from NASA).

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    The latest science says... the consensus was wrong on climate sensitivity (gray shaded area is IPCC range ) :

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/some-sense-about-sensitivity/cs studies

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @evildictaitor: I had a look at that chart of temperatures in your link :

     97% of climate scientists agree:

    What you don't seem to be aware of is that all the warming that took place before 1950 or so could not possibly have been from Carbon because the world did not produce much CO2 from burning fossil fuels until beginning then. That by the way is the consensus view.

    I don't see any warming for the last 17 years :

    no warming

     

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    , evildictait​or wrote

    In fact, not only does NASA think that it's happening - these 200 other national or international scientific organisations think so too.

    I had a look at your other link. It states as follows :

    "(Scientific Organizations That Hold the  Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)"

    However, the IPCC said in their latest SREX report that no climate change has yet been detected. So there seems to be some kind of foul up in that statement. I assume such statements are political in nature and not actual scientific statements.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    50 NASA Astronauts and specialists sign a letter telling NASA ...

    "In our letter of March 28, 2012, we, the undersigned, respectfully requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites."

    /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

    /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Cargo Engineering, Crew Syst. Div. 32 years

    /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Director of Mission Support, 23 years

    /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

    /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Div., MOD, 41 years

    /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

    /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

    /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

    /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

    /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

    /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

    /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

    /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

    /s/ Gerald D. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

    /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

    /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

    /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. PE – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 14 years

    /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

    /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

    /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Div., MOD, 40 years

    /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

    /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, *'t. for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

    /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, *'t. Chief Materials Div., Engr. Directorate, 30 years

    /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

    /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

    /s/ Richard McFarland – ARC, Mgr. Tech development VMS & Motion Simulators, 28 years

    /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

    /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

    /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

    /s/ Alex Pope – JSC, Aerospace Engineer, Engr. Directorate, 44 years

    /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

    /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Div., Engr. Dir., 48 years

    /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC, Sim. Dev. Branch Chief, Systems Dev. Div., Mission Support Dir., 26 years

    /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

    /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, *'t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

    /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years

    /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq.–  Dir. Expendable Equipment (Ext. Tank, Solid Boosters, & Shuttle Upper Stages), 20 years

    /s/ James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

    /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

    /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

    /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – ARC, GSFC, Hdq. -  Meteorologist, 5 years

     

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/22/nasa-astronauts-announce-second-letter-to-nasa-at-heartland-conference/

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    @Proton2: Try as you might to co-opt the NASA brand into saying your denialist agenda - the simple fact is that NASA's official position is that climate change is happening and that it is human CO2 driven.

    Also my 97% figure that you so ardently disagree with is NASA's own number. When you argue that the number is wrong because I'm just missing some obvious step, what you're actually doing is saying that NASA is wrong.

    Now I'm not saying that armchair internet amateurs never beat the professionals. I'm just saying often what looks great because all of your Internet buddies agree is actually really badly wrong. NASA has billions of dollars, no less than 15 satellites dedicated to climate science, and one of the biggest collections of brilliant scientists in the United States. Suggesting that they've missed something as obvious as "oh wait, silly us, it's the Sun's rays not CO2" or "golly gosh, the Earth hasn't warmed in 10 years" is not only ridiculous, but also immensely egotistical and insulting to everyone at NASA.

    You might be smart. I have no doubt that you might be smarter than me and everyone else on this forum. But you're almost certainly not smarter than all of NASA's climate science department -- if you were, you'd get a PhD in climate science, write a great paper on how climate works, and get a job for life there afterwards and can sit back and wait for your nobel prize.

    As for your list of 50 astronauts and mechanics who want to disagree, I'll leave you with NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati:

    If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,

    If you want to join the debate that matters - write a paper and engage with the actual science, rather than shouting barely checked facts and hastily scrawled graphs into the Internet. Because until you do, the consensus is and will remain that AGW is real, it's happening, and it's because of human emitted CO2.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @evildictaitor: I agree that NASA does a lot of climate science and has produced a lot of data about the climate. There are many views that one could say represents NASA, or range of views. I have no doubt that many NASA officials, representatives and scientists believe that AGW is real and is caused by human emitted CO2.

    Even I believe this. But its all about how much warming will there be. The latest science, the latest collection of high quality data, seems to be pointing to a lot less warming, using the common terminology of per doubling, than previously thought.

    I don't want to see you or any one else being upset at what I write. I want to be right about the science. I don't see how I could be getting it wrong. Every other thing I have ever studied and researched I have agreed with on the consensus. But climate science seems to have a lot of politics involved.

    Dr. Judith Curry gave testimony at a congressional hearing on Policy relevant climate issues yesterday. here are some extract on her thoughts about Consensus :

    "...Given these uncertainties, there would seem to be plenty of scope for disagreement among scientists. Nevertheless, the consensus about dangerous anthropogenic climate change is portrayed as nearly total among climate scientists. Further, the consensus has been endorsed by all of the relevant national and international science academies and scientific societies.

    I have been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus given these uncertainties. How to reason about uncertainties in the complex climate system is neither simple nor obvious. Scientific debates involve controversies over the value and importance of particular classes of evidence, failure to account for indeterminacy and ignorance, as well as disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for assessing the evidence.

    For the past three years, I've been working towards understanding the dynamics of uncertainty at the climate science-policy interface. This research has led me to question whether these dynamics are operating in a manner that is healthy for either the science or the policy process.

    The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC's consensus building process played a useful role in the early synthesis of the scientific knowledge about dangerous anthropogenic climate change. However, I have argued that the ongoing scientific consensus seeking process has had the unintended consequence of oversimplifying both the problem and its solutions, introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes."

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/25/congressional-hearing-on-policy-relevant-climate-issues-in-context/

    And on whether or not climate change is happening :

    "The prospect of increased frequency or severity of extreme weather in a warmer climate is potentially the most serious near term impact of climate change. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found limited observational evidence for worsening of most types of extreme weather events. Attempts to determine the role of global warming in extreme weather events is complicated by the rarity of these events and also by their dependence on natural weather and climate regimes that are simulated poorly by climate models."

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Proton2 wrote

    There are many views that one could say represents NASA, or range of views.

    The only views that represent NASA are the views that NASA endorses. And NASA's official position on AGW is completely and categorically clear.

    Hijacking NASA's brand to make your point when they are so completely opposite to your viewpoint on this issue is nothing short intellectual fraud.

    I would have no problem with you saying that NASA are wrong, stupid, part of a wider conspiracy or whatever. But saying that NASA thinks that AGW isn't happening, or even that they are undecided or neutral on the issue is just outright and completely wrong.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @evildictaitor: Thank you for responding. I will be making inquiries about NASA's "official" position. As I have stated, there are hundreds of NASA employees and former employees that disagree with what NASA posts on their web sites and in news briefs.

     

    Is it one individual at NASA that decides? A committee?

     

    NASA got it wrong on launching Challenger on that cold January day. 7 people died.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    From the NASA link you provide, I already have found a mistake :

     

    "The IPCC brings together the world's top scientists in all relevant fields to provide reports based on scientific evidence and reflecting existing viewpoints within the scientific community."

     

    This simply is not true. Read Donna Laframboise book 'The Delinquent Teenager That Was Mistaken for the Worlds Top Climate Expert" to learn more.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/

    NASA is using propaganda dressed up as science.

     

    Time will prove me right. That is all.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Proton2 wrote

    *snip*

    NASA got it wrong on launching Challenger on that cold January day. 7 people died.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

    You can't be * serious.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    The thing is, there are many things in climate change that are actually controversial. There are many things that even climate scientists don't agree fully on.

    The problem is, the things that you and Maddus are arguing about aren't it. Everyone who actually knows what they're talking about knows that the greenhouse effect exists and that CO2 is one of the gases contributing to it. No one in the climate science community is actually arguing about the basic science behind that because it was settled 150 years ago.

    How much warming is caused by CO2 increase, how much that is our fault, and what we should do about it. These are things worth talking about. Trying to argue about things that literally everyone agrees on is just throwing sands in people's faces in the hopes they won't be able to see the real debate anymore.

    And I agree with cbae. Using the Challenger disaster as an example here is beyond low. Not to mention irrelevant.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @cbae: The Challenger reference was brought up because now we are talking about decisions from the top. The decision to launch. The decision to become activist in the climate debate comes from the same people.

     

    @sven : Here's the thing. I've studied the subject and I know it well. You have mistakenly combined my view with Maddus who misinterprets one of the laws of physics.

  • User profile image
    Proton2
  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Proton2 wrote

    @cbae: The Challenger reference was brought up because now we are talking about decisions from the top. The decision to launch. The decision to become activist in the climate debate comes from the same people.

    *snip*

    It was a cheap shot, and a despicable one.

    Maybe you forgot that "decisions from the top" also played a major role in getting 3 astronauts stranded 300,000 miles away from Earth safely back home in 1970.

    Edit: And another thing...The decision to launch Challenger didn't come "from the top". Lawrence Mulloy was a mid-level manager in charge of the rocker booster program. The decision to launch did not come from the Flight Director or a higher-level NASA administrator.

    People make mistakes, and sometimes decisions are rushed due to time constraints and result in catastrophic consequences. That's not the case with NASA's position on AGW. They've had plenty of time to come to their conclusions.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    Didn't you post links about former NASA scientists expressing their "true feelings" and denying AGW now since they're no longer under the yoke of NASA's "activist" position?

    It seems that this particular guy's situation is the exact opposition. He's now able to express his true feelings (about denalists) which he couldn't do while working for NASA.

    This basically kills your original premise. You make it so easy.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.