NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy With Call for Civil Disobedience

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


Nice. Here in New Mexico we have had 72 degree weather for several days this last week, and the trees are already budding and blooming because the whole winter has been unseasonably warm.

Which is NOT normal for New Mexico. It is a desert, but it is high desert and we normally have cold, just not terribly snowy, winters.

www.rssweather.com...

It doesnt mean for certain it is global warming caused. It could just be odd weather, normal abnormalities, if you will.

reply to post by jdub297


And jdub297, I am still reading on the carbon credit trading. I was under the impression that the US would not be a big seller of those credits, but a buyer. I thought, and I could be wrong, that they were introduced because when it was initially suggested that countries just slash their carbon emissions, industrialized nations (like the US) threatened to withdraw completely.

It was my understanding, (and again, I could be wrong, still reading) that these credits were compromises so that "the market" could handle emissions, as a way of allowing the invisible hand to induce companies to lower their CO2 output as they saw fit, by purchasing credits from companies that were able or willing to reduce their CO2 emissions more quickly.

Thats what they told us in business school, anyway.

Thanks for the link, too.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I don't think the Global Warming is a conspiracy, the conspiracy I know is that the scientists are downplaying it because it has become annoyingly warm in our country for the past decade.

I used to sleep under the sheets at the month of February when I was a child, now I always sleep half naked and doesn't even feel the cold of dawn.

Or the HAARP is trying to mess our climate..

[edit on 3-3-2009 by ahnggk]

reply to post by ahnggk

Funny, AGW advocating scientists at the Univ. of Milwaukee and NOAA acknowledged yesterday that temps have been essentially FLAT FOR THE PAST DECADE. www.msnbc.com...

Even though they admit their climate models do not work or explain this (against their presumptions that Earth SHOULD be warming) they claim that after 30 years or so, the temps will spike alarmingly. Of course, this coming spike is their BELIEF, not a modeling or trend analysis, and it will be reported as gospel in the next day or so.

Deny Ignorance!

jw

"Oh my goodness," Hansen's former supervisor, Dr. John Theon, told FOXNews.com. "I'm not surprised ... the fact Hansen has gone off the deep end here is sad ... .

lol, yeah, that sounds like Fox news attempt at "Fair and Balanced" unbiased news alright.


You see, respectable news organizations wouldn't air personal comments like that... at least, not without the other side present.

Not that I'm taking sides with the guy... just felt like pointing out yet another Jerry Springer style broadcast by Fox.


How about we just stop sourcing Fox?
It's not like they're usually the first out with news.
Someone else typically beats them to it, and manages to actually present it as news.

Man made global warming is false, plain and simple. This guy should lose his job for providing false information, not for trying to incite civil disobedience.

Originally posted by PullThePin
Man made global warming is false, plain and simple.

If you know that, you should get a paper published in Nature proving it


The fact is that manmade global warming (and other climate change) is true, plain and simple. The question is how much has their been and how much more will there be. Hansen's view in both cases is a lot, others tend to disagree. But hardly anyone involved in climate research over the last 50 years disputes that human activities have some impact on climate.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by PullThePin
Man made global warming is false, plain and simple.

If you know that, you should get a paper published in Nature proving it

The fact is that manmade global warming (and other climate change) is true, plain and simple. The question is how much has their been and how much more will there be. Hansen's view in both cases is a lot, others tend to disagree. But hardly anyone involved in climate research over the last 50 years disputes that human activities have some impact on climate.

www.wnd.com...

reply to post by alienesque


Exactly my point. Read the petition. It does not dispute AGW. It disputes the idea of catastrophic warming, questions proposals aimed at reducing GHG emissions, and suggests that AGW may in fact be beneficial.

Besides which, how many signatories are actively involved in climate research?

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by alienesque

 

Exactly my point. Read the petition. It does not dispute AGW. It disputes the idea of catastrophic warming, questions proposals aimed at reducing GHG emissions, and suggests that AGW may in fact be beneficial.

Besides which, how many signatories are actively involved in climate research?

hmmm..it says that these scientists do not agree with the claim being spread by the governments and media that man can cause catastrophic global warming...

its all about the amount of change being caused by us humans..if its miniscule and has very little or no effect on the climate then we are obviously being lied to...thats the point.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by PullThePin
Man made global warming is false, plain and simple.

If you know that, you should get a paper published in Nature proving it

The fact is that manmade global warming (and other climate change) is true, plain and simple.

Not even gonna try to convince you otherwise....

Why do people cling to global warming like it's a religion?

I guess of because how ridiculously hard it is pushed by the media...gotta be some agenda behind it.

reply to post by PullThePin

AGW serves many purposes for differing interests:

It gives credence to the belief that man is more than just a parasitic infection of an insignificant planet of an ordinary star. It creates an illusion of power and control over nature. We, ultimately, have neither.

It creates a platform from which to attack those to blame for what's wrong with some lives/agendas: corporations, Republicans, industry, technology, nature, power, (fill in the blank).

It lines the pockets of shrewd manipulators in political office, institutions, non-profit organizations, and entrepreneurs.

It empowers social manipulators to further their (hidden) true agenda, or just to give them power over the lives and well-being of the masses, some of whom are unaware of the issue altogether.

Consider the consequences of an unfettered AGW agenda:

Availability and choice of resources is restricted to select favorites; money flows to advocates to further the message/"solution;" AGW targets are restricted, confined or eliminated; unlimited funding sources (i.e., consumers, "emitters") are tapped without limits on use or purpose.

Finally, AGW advocates are in a win/win situation: if the climate stabilizes or "reverses," they take credit; if a warming trend crystalizes, they take credit.

In either climatic outcome, AGW is "proven" and billions of dollars or Euros or zlotys or pesos are diverted from remediable situations such as hunger, local pollution, poverty and homelessness.

An example: the recent "Discovery" channel series of experiments on CO2 remediation and containment. Over a dozen projects funded, developed, publicized and tested.

ALL FAILED.

Worse, ALL ADDED CO2 and other GHGs to the environment; not to mention the waste of tons of fossil fuels, man-hours of research, and millions of dollars of public and private funding.

But it looked cool, and drew much attention to the "problem."

If all this wasn't sickening, it would be a joke.

By the way, MSNBC (the Anti-Fox Network if there ever was one), Discovery News and the Christian Science Monitor are reporting the published findings of AGW advocates/researchers at U. of Wisc.-Milwaukee, NOAA, the Leibniz Institute for Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany, and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, showing that temperaures for the past decade, and possibly the next, show no average change at all!

The forecast is "very bold," cautions Tom Delworth, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University. But, he adds, it represents the cutting edge of climate modeling. The German effort is one of the first widely published attempts to offer climate forecasts on time scales of a decade or so, rather than a century or more. The findings appear in the(June, 2008) edition of Nature.

www.csmonitor.com...
(emphasis proudly added)

So much for any questions about peer review and so much for "Nature" reliants as so-called 'proof.'

www.msnbc.msn.com...

dsc.discovery.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

DENY IGNORANCE!

jw