It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

page: 10
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
But is is really "...fear mongering of catastrophic global warming and alarmism ..." if that's what we're being told from Valid Scientists and Scientific organizations the world over? Should I ignore NASA?




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

First off, most scientists don't agree with catastrophic climate change:

97% agree that we are warming and that humans contribute, however the majority do not endorse catastrophic climate change.

Concerning NASA?


March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

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

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

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

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, 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/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 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/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

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

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

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

/s/ Gerald C. 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/ Thomas J. Harmon

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

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 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 Division, 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, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, 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/ 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/ Tom Ohesorge

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

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 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 Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

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

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

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

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

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

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

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

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

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years


I don't know, should you?

Edit: format
edit on 27-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
But is is really "...fear mongering of catastrophic global warming and alarmism ..." if that's what we're being told from Valid Scientists and Scientific organizations the world over? Should I ignore NASA?


Nope.

If you look at the record objectively – the alleged “alarmists” (i.e. the actual scientists, not the media trying to sell stories) have been historically too cautious in their assessments. The IPCC have actually been accused several times by other climate scientists (i.e. not a bunch of aerospace engineers like in the letter above lol) that they're underestimating the impacts of AGW:

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?

Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise

How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change


So who's been doing all the crying about alarmism? Well let's see - take James Taylor, the man responsible for the phony claims in the OP. Look up some of his other articles and count how many times he uses the term:





The fact is this has been a deliberate strategy employed by PR specialists trying to undermine global warming for decades:




Why? Because their target audience (mainly angry paranoid conservatives) eat this stuff up:




Their mindsets are dominated by fear and hyperbole and emotional rhetoric.

How many global warming believers do you know that are always running around screaming we're all gonna die omg run? I'm sure there are some out there, but the vast majority I know are more of the mindset "this is a complex problem, let's take personal responsibility and action, we can do this"

Meanwhile how many skeptics have you seen posting on these boards that we're all supposed to be underwater by now, Al Gore wants to tax the air we breathe, agenda 21/global gov't, etc, etc...


Their brains are consumed by this sort of doom porn fear-mongering, and all the accusations they hurl over this way are just classic examples of projection bias.




Climate deniers truly are demented and insanely oblivious if you ask me.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
So you disagree with the peer reviewed paper that determined the majority of climate scientists do not adhere to catastrophic climate change yet still adhere to climate change and that it is the most important issue facing future generations, especially from a risk management perspective?

Skepticism is not denial. I like how that word crept into the discourse over the last year or two though.

a reply to: mc_squared



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Right, you mean the paper that specifically surveyed a bunch of engineers and geoscientists in the oil industry in Alberta, and then you and shills like James Taylor try to misrepresent as the "majority of climate scientists"?

Peer-Rev iewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis



Skepticism is not denial.


No it's not. And the more you try to patronize us with this blatant denier nonsense, the clearer it becomes which camp you actually fall into.

Denialism From Forbes Courtesy of Heartland Hack James Taylor



edit on 27-5-2015 by mc_squared because: for clarity - the study itself is legit, the people bastardizing it into something else not so much



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Why should open source tech like TESLA not bear the potential to change the world? That's a pretty decent approach, we just need more of this. Establish open source on a big scale and you will see some rapid changes very soon. Mostly for the better I guess, people work together usually. And they will continue to achieve astounding things if they do so.

www.theguardian.com...



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

www.theguardian.com...


^ I love this.

The key though is to inspire people to seek out those open source solutions. People are inspired by challenges. The problem of climate change is what drove me personally into the renewable energy field. I know many, many people who have the same drive.

But a bunch of crusty, denialist cranks want everyone to live in oblivious denial with them, because they're too scared to face the future. I don't care what their personal political insecurities are, just get out of our # way



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I've never read that article but I think James Taylor is a hack...

What exactly am I denying? That the earth is warming? Nope. That humans contribute to it? Nope. What am I denying exactly?

What future am I scared of? The one where innovation pulls us out of our current co2 situation? The one where we do it without supplanting a free market or personal liberty?

a reply to: mc_squared

I 100% have the same view as these prominent climate scientists.
edit on 27-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared




just get out of our # way


Hahaha, and that's the groove! I love it. May the force (of invention) be with us then.


Big respect for your work! I'm just happy to be free from the printing-industry finally and concentrating more on my other talents, paintings actually. Very weird ones but hey, we all have our own crap to carry. Hehe...

I love those obvious denying cranks btw., very good entertainment after all. Meaningfully entertainment to be more precise.

edit on 27-5-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to raymundoko


Why would electric cars be an issue? Look at the new Tesla factories, they'll be fully solar powered...more companies will shift towards that model to streamline costs to compete. Such is the free market.

The laws of the market will not protect you from the laws of physics.


Do you disagree with climate consensus that human caused warming can be completely neutralized/reversed through conservation and nuclear energy?

There is no such consensus.

In my view, and that of many experts, there may be hope for the survival of our species, since we are so many, but for society, and for civilization as a whole, sentence has already been passed.

The fact is that few dare contemplate the truth.


Energy isn't an issue, we're moving towards that, especially with the international easing of allowing non nuclear countries to conduct nuclear research and construction for power.

And have they also found a way to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


I've never read that article but I think James Taylor is a hack...


Sure, maybe you never read Taylor’s article, but you decided to misrepresent that paper with the exact same hack script. Here’s what you wrote:


First off, most scientists don't agree with catastrophic climate change:

Next post…

So you disagree with the peer reviewed paper that determined the majority of climate scientists do not adhere to catastrophic climate change


Fact is maybe you read it instead on wattsupwiththat, or climatedepot, or any of the other zillion denialist sites that distort this stuff every day.

I don’t really care - the point is you obviously didn’t read the actual paper.

If you had done that, you would understand it was not representative of “most scientists” or “the majority of climate scientists” at all. In fact this study focused exclusively on scientists and engineers in the oil industry because it wanted to compare how such institutional biases affect their opinions on climate change relative to the 97% consensus. That was basically the entire thesis.

So you didn’t read the paper, just parroted some denier hacks’ phony interpretation of it...or maybe you did read it, and decided to consciously misrepresent the findings anyway?

Either way, denialism is as denialism does. It really has nothing to do with what you believe - it has everything to do with how you represent yourself and your position. Real skeptics do it with integrity. Deniers do it with willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

This is an excellent idea. Open source to tackle the toughest problems we are faced with!

More need to catch on and live responsibly.

So many claim to care but few actually take any action, and the reality is most are too busy working hard trying to make ends meet for their family to give a $%%^ and take the time to do their own research, sadly it is those who are the ones who get hoodwinked into the asinine idea that this is all a hoax to make Al Gore rich or whatever knee-jerk argument sticks.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
It appears you are the one who hasn't read the paper...or you didn't understand it. I would go with both considering you authored the now invalid "Gulf Stream shutting down" thread and then tucked tail when it turned out to be wrong. You are the parrot.

It used scientists both in and out of the oil industry to compare their views...

Even then, you are using the word deny wrong. I'm not denying climate change, nor that man is contributing. I'm skeptical of models which have failed to offer accurate predictions since the 1980's. You might not be old enough to know how far back this rhetoric goes or how many predictions have failed.

a reply to: mc_squared
edit on 28-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: amazing

First off, most scientists don't agree with catastrophic climate change:

97% agree that we are warming and that humans contribute, however the majority do not endorse catastrophic climate change.

Concerning NASA?


March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

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

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

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

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, 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/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 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/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

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

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

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

/s/ Gerald C. 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/ Thomas J. Harmon

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

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 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 Division, 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, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, 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/ 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/ Tom Ohesorge

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

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 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 Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

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

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

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

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

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

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

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

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

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years


I don't know, should you?

Edit: format


But you have a letter by around 50 people. There are thousands of people in NASA telling me that we're in a cycle of Man made global warming. I still have to go with the thousands of people over the 50. Then...on NASA's concensus link you have a list of well over 200 world wide scientific associations that believe in the same man made global warming and they had to get some kind of consensus in their organizations to publish that. so there again you ahve thousands more.

I'm not that good at Math but...3-5 thousand > than 50 and I have to go with again, the majority of scientists there. Simple Math. Tell me how my reasoning is wrong here. Please.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

You are confusing climate change and catastrophic (fast) climate change. Yes, the consensus is we are warming and that man contributes, I am not contesting that nor is the paper you read. However, the consensus is NOT that we are changing so catastrophically fast that we can't adapt or improve our situation before it is too late.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




However, the consensus is NOT that we are changing so catastrophically fast that we can't adapt or improve our situation before it is too late.


More people would actually even suggest higher probabilities for said improvement. It's called math, innit?

Yeah ok, the equasion is not quite that simple due to the fact that education is not free, but here we go again:
open source-age anyone? ...




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: amazing

You are confusing climate change and catastrophic (fast) climate change. Yes, the consensus is we are warming and that man contributes, I am not contesting that nor is the paper you read. However, the consensus is NOT that we are changing so catastrophically fast that we can't adapt or improve our situation before it is too late.


I see what you're saying and all of this isn't directed at you...but I don't think we are adapting. In fact, if you just take one nation, USA, You'll see that we aren't doing anything to mitigate change at all...It takes years and decades to build and change infrastructure. Look at Florida, they can't even talk about Climate Change or mention that by name...then look at New Orleans...sea level rise of a few inches and warmer oceans by very, very small amounts can make the next Hurricane that hits it even more powerful than Katrina. They aren't doing any mitigating down there. We have Solar power caps in some places like Las Vegas at 5%...only 5% of houses are allowed to have Solar. We're not doing anything, you know?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod




So many claim to care but few actually take any action, and the reality is most are too busy working hard trying to make ends meet for their family to give a $%%^ and take the time to do their own research, sadly it is those who are the ones who get hoodwinked into the asinine idea that this is all a hoax to make Al Gore rich or whatever knee-jerk argument sticks.


We all have to, at least to some degree, that's part of the deal here in Westeros.
But we can do our best to consume deliberately and to imagine another place, or even try to life for this 24/7. That's what I would consider a very good start and somebody has to do something by now.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
It appears you are the one who hasn't read the paper...or you didn't understand it.


That paper focused solely on a survey of 1077 members of the Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of Alberta. They made it abundantly clear why:


To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.


The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy.


We examine the discursive contestation of climate change and associated expertise by professional engineers and geoscientists. We use an instrumental case to examine the debate among these professionals who dominate the oil industry in Alberta, with the oil sands as a source of particularly ‘dirty’ oil.


Furthermore here is a breakdown of the survey from APEGA. Only 15.5% of the respondents were actual geoscientists.

How you can sit there with a straight face and try to tell us this represents “the majority of climate scientists” is beyond sanity. You have reduced this discussion to the exact same desperate tactics as a man you yourself described as a hack.

And then, for bonus points, you also want to bring the gulf stream thread into this: Tell me, at which point did I turn tail and run there – was it before or after I debunked all your criticisms, and then caught you misrepresenting your own links to boot – remember this?

So that’s twice now you’ve been caught with your pants down. I have a feeling I’m not the first one here to do so either. And you're questioning my use of the term denial? Your grasping-at-straws (ir)rationalizations, and very blatant attempts at intellectual dishonesty here are the very definition of it.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
You know warming actually reduces hurricanes chances of landfall correct?

However I agree with you that we aren't moving fast enough and that government is the biggest problem, not the people. I'm only allowed to generate 85% of my own power here. Excess power goes back to the grid and I still have to pay an electric bill...

However with innovators like Tesla Inc. stepping up and as better/cheaper alternative fuel (e.g. Electric) cars are available the consumers will move in that direction. Same goes for residential power. Cheaper will eventually win with the people, and things like the power wall are allowing consumers to move in that direction for lowering costs.

a reply to: amazing




top topics



 
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join