Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

a reply to: defcon5

I trust that guy more than anyone currently employed by any government entity. The government has been force feeding this crap for years... which makes it immediately suspect. They no longer have our best interests in mind... it's all about them and the almighty US Dollar...

originally posted by: madmac5150
I wonder how the climate change camp will try to spin this one...

Here's the FIRST paragraph of the article in the OP:

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Here is 40+ years of evidence recorded daily from Mauna Loa and several other sites:



This evidence is reproduced by many more monitoring stations around the world:

scrippsco2.ucsd.edu...

Some of us in the climate change camp like to "spin" these things by focusing on actual facts, not the anecdotal beliefs of some gone-emeritus grump - who clearly doesn't know the first thing about climate change if he thinks there's "no evidence" that CO2 levels have even increased.

He's just your typical "esteemed expert" right wing media loves to trot out, in all their desperate attempts to undermine even the most basic of facts on climate change. They should've just gotten Grampa Simpson.

I can't believe they continue to spin and lie all the time and the posts on this, when most people realize the whole global warming is a ponzy scheme, and that while pollution isn't nice, should be capped and better cleaner technologies, that this is cycles, often the sun involved, and they have no right to use this to put silver nitrate in clouds, destroy our climates and farming and health, and give these technologies to corporate bullies to use at their whims, to chase out farmers, put in dams, take over areas, cause horrendous winds, like we've had and the fogs, snowing at 6 above zero with this freezing (and I know its silver nitrate) fog hanging on the mountains. Only time the temp drops is this deep freeze they're doing.

Bullies and creeps that need jail big time!

I've never seen any proof of global warming. Perhaps if the sea level rises like some predict I will retract what I have said about GW.

The carbon in the atmosphere is increasing. CO2 and CH4 levels are rising at alarming rates as a result of human activity. Due to deforestation and mass kill offs from pollution in our waters many natural sinks of atmosphere carbon are now destroyed.

It is sad that we have become a global species yet we are continuing to destroy our planet.

True science is tough to find with so many claiming to be experts and scientists manipulating facts and sometimes making downright false claims in order to serve the almighty dollar.

a reply to: madmac5150
www.dailymail.co.uk...

add this to the mix, top climate specialist claims governments meddling

originally posted by: eManym
The global temperatures have been rising exponentially in the last 75 to 100 years. This is a cause for concern and is an indication of global warming.

Do you even know what exponentially means? I am surprised you can spell it. Not only have they NOT risen exponentially. temps have been static (that means unchanged) for the last 15 years and counting. That is a scientific fact. Instead of spouting drivel check the science.

articles.latimes.com...

While I respect his opinion - cause this is what this is - I do not agree.

The rise of the industries has precipitated numbers up the scale since the fifties. I do not think that Global Warming or Climate Change or call it whatever you want is solely man made, but it's there and it could be part of a cycle - no denying - but we've contributed to it for the last sixty years or so.

There was a scientist here where I live that had a show on TV back in the seventies. I clearly remember him saying that - back then - we were about to cross a point of no return, if we didn't start to be careful. That was thirty five years or so ago.

Have we crossed that point? I would not know but it doesn't look good.

And we are not careful, us as individuals and industries both. Some people yell at the top of their lungs that industries are polluting while they throw their McDonald's lunches out the window while driving. They complain about the lack of recycling facilities that could recuperate instead of burning while they empty their car ashtrays out on the street or closest parking lot.

Sad truth. We are not careful and our children or grand children will pay the price. When the weather gets so crazy that people will start crapping their pants...well, who cares really as most of us will be dead anyway.

Nothing new.

When I see some open and honest debate I'll start listening to the alarmists.

Open up the data sets to the public, and defend your statements.


The way it is now they refuse to debate skeptics and resort to personal attacks.

That's not how real science works.

It's the Sun.

a reply to: Hmmmmmmm

There is no debate about the rising CO2 and CH4 levels, there is no debate deforestation is happening, and it is likely that that pollution has caused a significant decline in phytoplankton and algae levels, which all are natural sinks of carbon in our atmosphere.

The rise in CO2 is caused by human activity.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: eManym
The global temperatures have been rising exponentially in the last 75 to 100 years. This is a cause for concern and is an indication of global warming.

When you can explain this graph, then I'll start listening. Until then, what any global warming kook has to say is folly.

Let me quote the very scientists who made those measurements :

Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.

The new findings are expected to help scientists improve existing computer models for predicting future climate change as increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere drive up Earth's temperatures globally.

Now there is plenty more to read if you wish but if you understand it you cannot post your skeptic nonsense.

What you are seeing is the measurement of the atmosphere above Greenland which has change dramatically. The pre-industrialisation temperatures are a reflection of the atmosphere as it is at present and "look and feel" if you like of the Earth as we know it NOW. However, we are affecting that atmosphere to change and the GISP data shows that exceptional changes can occur within such a short timeframe as to make adaptation by us exceptionally challenging.

I see you have nothing to support global warming caused by humans. There's nothing in there that is evidence otherwise. The graph I posted was derived from ice core samples. It's geological history locked in ice. It isn't subjective. Can you argue the data in the graph? There were much warmer times here on Earth when man was no industrialized. The Al Gore hockey stick is the tail end. It was presented as false evidence. It was used to deceive. Not presenting the prior data was dishonest. As a species, we've existed here under much warmer conditions and so did all other species.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Hmmmmmmm

There is no debate about the rising CO2 and CH4 levels, there is no debate deforestation is happening, and it is likely that that pollution has caused a significant decline in phytoplankton and algae levels, which all are natural sinks of carbon in our atmosphere.

The rise in CO2 is caused by human activity.

That's not the debate I'm talking about.

The debate is whether C02 drives temperature.

And if it did, we would be getting warmer, but since 1998 there has been no measurable warming. It's a trace gas in the atmosphere, and if increases that minor had the effect that is claimed our climate would be an extreme roller-coaster.

You do realize that the greenhouse effect is why we have life on Earth right?

That without it our planet would look a lot like Mars.

And that plants need C02 to live, therefore we need it to live.


It's not poison, it's keeping you alive.


Again, I'll restate my concern that nobody from the IPCC or CRU will participate in an open academic debate. They have been asked repeatedly and refused on all but one occasion, then changed their minds and bailed.

If the science is so sound, why are they afraid of a debate?

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: madmac5150
I wonder how the climate change camp will try to spin this one...

Here's the FIRST paragraph of the article in the OP:

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Here is 40+ years of evidence recorded daily from Mauna Loa and several other sites:

This evidence is reproduced by many more monitoring stations around the world:

scrippsco2.ucsd.edu...

Some of us in the climate change camp like to "spin" these things by focusing on actual facts, not the anecdotal beliefs of some gone-emeritus grump - who clearly doesn't know the first thing about climate change if he thinks there's "no evidence" that CO2 levels have even increased.

He's just your typical "esteemed expert" right wing media loves to trot out, in all their desperate attempts to undermine even the most basic of facts on climate change. They should've just gotten Grampa Simpson.

You have proved nothing other than CO2 levels are higher at one time vs another. You have not proved they were never higher than they are now and you have not proved the correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. Right now it's anecdotal. For all anyone knows, atmospheric CO2 levels rise because the planet is getting warmer.

originally posted by: eManym
Just because he is a government scientist doesn't mean anything. He got the job because he has friends. Doesn't mean he is intelligent either because he has an army of contractors to do all of the work.

Most US government employees are ex military and have little in the way of skills in the professions that are assigned to.

No offense to ex military because many are very intelligent. I see a different light in many of the US government workers I have been exposed to.

Wrong. The fact is that the Global Warming crowd are always quick to use "NASA Science" as evidence of their agenda. So in this case, we have an example of a NASA scientist coming out against the greenie weenies inside the global warming crowd to speak AGAINST global warming.

And frankly, your argument is trollish. He is more distinguished than you will ever be, and his comments and theories will hold up strongly against your ignorance of the matter.

originally posted by: eManym
The global temperatures have been rising exponentially in the last 75 to 100 years. This is a cause for concern and is an indication of global warming.

"Exponentially"???????????????????????? Really?

This would mean that average earth temperatures would have risen to the NTH degrees. I dont think that temperatures have doubled or tripled. We would have been roasted by now.

Watch what words you use to spread your agenda.

This entire debate is based upon government sanctioned doom porn... do you not get it? Is free thought beyond you? THAT is the big question....

well when you see stuff like this how can you trust any global warming nut job scientists.

you have the first climategate, were all the investigations were in house or done by groups that have a vested interest.
as shown by this biased article, if you look at it the sources that say they cleared them it all done in house or by govt that have a vested interest in continuing the scam.
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

then climategate 2.0 where a additional 5000 emails came out and the same thing came to pass.

then last year where a report came out claiming that papers written on global warming proves that 97% of scientists that study it, agree that it is man made, is a flat out lie. at least 8 of the scientists that their papers were cited, said that's not what they said, and were not supportive of that claim.
this is the paper.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

and here are the eight that say other wise

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
Craig D. Idso
Ph.D. Geography
Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
Nicola Scafetta
Ph.D. Physics
Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team

both of the above from 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

and anyone who says that global warming is about the science and not political or economically, does not have a clue as to where it started from. it came from Marget Thacher, and more and more politicians/ governments have jumped on the band wagon, using it to further political and economical goals.

Global Warming: How It All Began

so all you chicken littles who think that man is killing the world and it's not a normal natural occurrence, keep on drinking the kool aid.

a reply to: mc_squared

Some of us in the climate change camp like to "spin" these things by focusing on actual facts, not the anecdotal beliefs of some gone-emeritus grump - who clearly doesn't know the first thing about climate change if he thinks there's "no evidence" that CO2 levels have even increased.

He's just your typical "esteemed expert" right wing media loves to trot out, in all their desperate attempts to undermine even the most basic of facts on climate change. They should've just gotten Grampa Simpson.

You know, you all should have gotten these idiots unstuck before it became World News, Actually you should have Stopped Them! You do remember these Pro-Climate Change Gays and gals don't you? You can sing along!

You don't seem so bad, but to be honest, some of the other climate change or global warming supporters, what ever they want to be called are kind of Radical.

Just saying, The ship went a was frozen in ice and had to be rescued. Damn!

It's late, but this needs to be said...

YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU!!

Let me reiterate,,,

YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU!!

Global "climate change" is a huge scam to seperate us from what little money we have left.....

originally posted by: madmac5150
It's late, but this needs to be said...

YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU!!

Let me reiterate,,,

YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU!!

Global "climate change" is a huge scam to seperate us from what little money we have left.....

Yeah exactly! They have used the Solar Cycle as the excuse for Climate Change and omitted evidence that blows their theories out of the water in order to fortify the LIE!!!

It was hotter in the medieval times than it is now! What was the problem back then? Horse and Cow Flatulence?



Al Gore has made a lot of money passing on the disinfo!



What a bunch of crap!