50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Sign Letter Slamming NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change Dogma

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Twice now you have mentioned "sea level rises" , Yet I bet you haven't even bothered to think about it !

For instance the Amazon river alone spews out 1 billion tons of sediment into the sea each year, That displaces water, then add all the other rivers that are doing the same ?

Then we have continual coastal erosion which is displacing water ?

Then we have the millions of boats sitting on the ocean, which are displacing water too ?

When you think about this it becomes obvious sea levels MUST rise.
edit on 11-4-2012 by ken10 because: (no reason given)


Yet those rivers have existed for a LOOOOOONG time, and the seawater level rise can't be explained through them because of it


Read the links I posted, they explain in detail (scientifically) why the rate of climate change is unprecedented.




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   


You do realize that an engineer has no clue about climate and weather, right? A "systems analyst" has no clue about rising seawater levels.


It's funny that you say that.

If a meteorologist needs to find something out about the environment.....who do you think that he/she calls?

An engineer.

Why?

Because an engineer has the knowledge to be able to build the satellites, weather balloons, samplers, analysers, spectrometers, etc, that the meteorologist requires.

Seems odd that an engineer can build the equipment that collects the data, yet lacks the ability to display such data in excel.


Must be pretty damn hard to make a graph on a spreedsheet.

BTW...I am a Mech Eng.....Yes I have studied the data.....Yes, I listen to any points made by others on the subject and weigh them up on their own merits. No I don't think that carbon is primarily responsible.

If carbon is playing a role in this ....it is because we have removed 80% of the worlds forests.....Not because of extra CO2 being pumped into the environment....but because the environment is loosing its ability to deal with it.

Want to help the planet.....Stop crapping on about AGW and go and plant a tree or three.
edit on 11/4/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Twice now you have mentioned "sea level rises" , Yet I bet you haven't even bothered to think about it !

For instance the Amazon river alone spews out 1 billion tons of sediment into the sea each year, That displaces water, then add all the other rivers that are doing the same ?

Then we have continual coastal erosion which is displacing water ?

Then we have the millions of boats sitting on the ocean, which are displacing water too ?

When you think about this it becomes obvious sea levels MUST rise.
edit on 11-4-2012 by ken10 because: (no reason given)


Yet those rivers have existed for a LOOOOOONG time, and the seawater level rise can't be explained through them because of it


Read the links I posted, they explain in detail (scientifically) why the rate of climate change is unprecedented.


How about you ask yourself this......WHERE would the extra water come from to make sea levels rise ! ....what is the machine making H2O ?.......When all you are allegedly doing is creating more CO2 from carbon based forms ?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 





.WHERE would the extra water come from to make sea levels rise ! ....what is the machine making H2O ?


Glacial melt?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 
I think you need to watch this



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


Well that too is debatable, which would lead to a circular argument.

But from what I have previously said, Logically Sea levels will rise regardless of temps due to natural water displacement and a rise in temps would see more clouds being formed that would lead to a cooling.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Here is what everyone seems to be missing in their back and forth argument to prove or disprove the idea of manmade global warming.

These scientists are NOT saying that manmade global warming doesn't exist.

Repeat: They are NOT saying it does not exist.

They ARE saying that they would like for NASA to recognize that the science is not settled.

Maybe the earth is warming and it is because of our CO2 emissions. Maybe the earth is warming and it is part of a solar-system-wide warming event. Maybe the earth is warming and it is just part of the natural cycle of earth. There is science that could back up any one of those 3 conjectures.

I think it is wise for us to admit that the science on manmade global warming is NOT settled, which is all these scientists want NASA to recognize.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Actually, that's exactly how science works. Scientists get together and discuss evidence that they feel is pertinant to something and when enough scientists hash out details they all sign it and make it a law. Any evidence that they decide doesn't pertain to it because it does not represent present beliefs is discounted and considered not applicable. This makes their theory unchallangeable and future generations are taught that their perception of things is real. Just because a bunch of influential people sign something doesn't mean their perception is real, it just means they all think alike. Many of the theories science has are pretty darn close to real but there are some that are at least partly wrong. Studies of evidence that goes against present perceptions is rarely done or is done with conditions that will probably cause a failure to reinforce everyones authentication of the sciences way of thinking.

Life is but an illusion. Believe only half of what you hear or three quarters of what you see. It also applies to science. Science is created by necessity, necessity to get more money for the expensive equipment that is needed to continue research. This necessitates science seeing things a certain way. A way that makes them research for evidence that substantiates the claims of the bearers of the money. Anyone challenging science gets their reputation tarnished. The need for money to live an easier life makes all people see a certain way as to preserve their livelihood. Why should science be any different. Why should government be different? That's part of our way of life. May not be real but it helps us to survive in this world.
edit on 11-4-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by ken10
 





.WHERE would the extra water come from to make sea levels rise ! ....what is the machine making H2O ?


Glacial melt?


Pumping ground water?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 



H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS


www.icecap.us...


H. Leighton Steward
Independent Director
EOG Resources
Houston , TX
Sector: BASIC MATERIALS / Independent Oil & Gas
76 Years Old
Mr. Steward has extensive experience in the oil and gas exploration and production industry, having served in various senior management roles with The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company, including President, Chief Operating Officer and, from 1989 until its acquisition by Burlington Resources, Inc. in 1997, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Steward subsequently served as Vice Chairman of Burlington Resources, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration, production and development company, until his retirement in 2000. Mr. Steward is former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Steward is also currently an author-partner of Sugar Busters, LLC, a provider of seminars, books and products related to helping people follow a healthy and nutritious lifestyle, and Chairman of the non-profit corporations Plants Need CO2 and CO2 Is Green, providers of information related to carbon dioxide?s impact on the global climate and the plant and animal kingdoms.

people.forbes.com...



First, the obvious: The "extra CO2 is good for plants" argument is completely nuts, unless you enjoy wildfires and think Virginia Beach would look better under 30 to 90 meters of seawater.

As for H. Leighton, I know why he likes to call himself "retired" - makes him seem like he's not the active part of Big Oil that he really is - but I'm not clear why Politico reporter Darren Goode repeats it here. Steward is a member of the board of directors of oil & gas company EOG Resources, where he's made millions of dollars.

H. Leighton is also trying to have it both ways on ownership of the letter. He told Goode he didn't organize it & isn't a spokesman, but hours later he emailed his PlantsNeedCO2.org list bragging about "our announcements" and media appearances.

……

Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professor Andrew Dessler told POLITICO that he did in fact meet with the 75 or so retirees at Goddard last October — along with University of Houston professor Barry Lefer and fellow Texas A&M professor John Nielsen-Gammon — and came away less than impressed.
“These people are well meaning, but they don’t seem to realize that climate science takes years of full-time work to actually get to know,” he said. “They really don’t understand anything about the climate system. They understand less than the first-year grad students that come out of my classes.”



thegreenmiles.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Oil money = Global Warming GOOOOD!!!!

Meanwhile...

MARCH 2012 THE WARMEST MONTH IN RECORDED HISTORY
news.yahoo.com...

This Oil Industry Millionaire idiot scoured through the NASA Alumni associations' list of thousands to dredge up 49 folks that have no Climate Science background, inflated several of thier titles and convinced them to sign off on his letter.

All paid for by the 3 Billion in subsidies the taxpayers give the Oil Industry annually, despite them being the most profitable industry in the USA last year.

You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so sad.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Now, as a child who grew up in the 80-90's in downtown area of LA, is there anything wrong with cutting carbon emissons?

I mean even if they don't cause global warming? If all it does is clear up the air a bit I am for it, I remember smog alerts that's triggered asthma attacks and hospital stays growing up

Thats the side of the global warming isn't man made argument I don't get, "excuse me but I don;t trust air I can't see..."



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

The hilarious part of this letter? The large majority of people who signed don't even have an education that would allow them to assess the thing properly in the first place
edit on 11-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


^As opposed to your decades long studies of atmosphere concentrations of gases, the ocean, ice cores, and studies of existing examples within our own solar system? Did I miss your paper? Can you link them please?

Derek



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Draconic fines is the only way to initiate change.


Assuming your faith is correct, how do fines in the US affect China, Russia, India, Indonesia, et al who either haven't drunk the UN Kool Aid or do not care?

The failed Kyoto Protocol and the EU/UK carbon trading schemes reveal the flaw in this narrow-thinking mindset.
US carbon emissions have dropped through the shift to natural gas strictly because of market dynamics.

Either way, there is no definitive proof that reducing CO2 emissions has had any appreciable affect on climate. To the contrary, despite huge increases in CO2 emissions, the global climate shows nothing near the calamity predicted by the various models.

Garbage in, garbage out.

jw



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I'd like to see some confirmation of the letter.

It was reported on a blog site. It's since been picked up by Infowars (not a reliable site) and the blog site that "broke" the news (I believe it was first) says "Now on Fox News" -- but it's not on Fox news. It's on a comment/blog site of Fox News and not even by a known Fox reporter.

It looks fishy. This may be genuine, but it demands further research (and not just -- oh look! It's on this site, too! Same letter!)

Anyone up for a bit of confirming investigation?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
"science is NOT settled…..unbecoming of NASA’s history…..advocacy of an extreme position…..damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA…..even the reputation of science itself…"

Could say the same about their explorations in space as well. You know, the global UFO cover-up.

Just saying - when NASA scientists get together to oppose something that isn't "true" --- it makes me laugh.

Not saying I promote this climate change bulltish.

But I'm not satisfied with the sources



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I am curiuos do you actually think Humans have no impact on the climate?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Ouch

Ouch

Ouchy


This Sham just like all other's has an experation date


And Walla, the op comes to save us



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


There are no major scientific bodies that doubt the. existence of AWG.... It is proven beyond reasonable doubt and yes all those scientitists could be wrong. But for the time being I will trust them. It is science that allows me to sit here tapping in front of a laptop. Science has bought us so much, why should I not heed the warnings of science..

I dont get why peeps get so upset about this. If we reduce CO2 levels and nothing happens so what they planet is cleaner...... Its not a risk worth taking...
edit on 11-4-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


I'd like to see the "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof about man-made global warming.

I have never seen any absolute evidence or the subject would no longer be debated. In fact, the "proof" by some universities and groups was proven to be doctored if I remember correctly... so I hope your proof is better than that.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
"the planet is fine, it's the PEOPLE that are f~^€¡ Ed" - G Carlin

The first time I heard him say that I thought he crossed the line. A year or so later and I have to say, sure seems thay way





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join