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

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Are we as a species really that arrogant?

Do we still think we're the center of the universe?

We must if we think that we can ruin the climate of an entire planet all by our lonesome selves.

So changes in the sun have nothing to do with it? Changes in interstellar gas don't contribute? Weakening magnetosphere? Changes in the troposphere? Volcanoes?

I guess none of that matters because WE HUMANS are capable of such great and magnificent things, like destroying climates on planets that are 4.5 billion years old.

Doesn't anyone else find it funny that as soon as the man-made global warming push came to a crawl, that so did the Carbon Tax initiatives? Oh, right... there's no connection there... move along....

What about the impact of methane, which is not produced by humans (unless you count farting), but has a 1000 times more destructive impact on the greenhouse gases that cause warming? Should we create a methane tax that includes a fart tax?

I propose a fart tax since methane is far more destructive than CO2, and we can even tax cows!

Grow some common sense people... we do other things to destroy our climate such as nuclear waste, oil spills, etc. Our air quality gets worse from industrial pollution, but to think it changes the climate is ridiculous. I'm all for working to create a healthier environment, cleaner water, cleaner air... but I refuse to follow this hyperbole. What better way to deal with a problem than to blame people for creating it so that they feel responsible and compelled to fix it...

Do some scientific research of your own and you'll see that this whole thing, led by a politician, was just a way to drum up support for more taxes, and it failed miserably.

It amazes me how little people remember... what happened to "the coming ice age" in the 70's? It was the same same argument... humans were causing the Earth to cool too rapidly, and that was politically aligned as well. And just like now, millions of people back then were fooled into thinking that they were going to bring about the big freeze. Did it happen? I guess their plans to warm the earth so that we don't freeze worked too well???

I find it really arrogant, ignorant and frankly, stupid to think that one variable, CO2 emitted from man-made pollution, would be the only thing contributing to the Earth's warming. There are THOUSANDS of other variables to consider when looking at an entire planet's climate. This is just one, and a small one comparatively.

As I said, I'm all for a cleaner environment and taking personal responsibility, but I refuse to be blamed as a cause of something that has occurred naturally for hundred of millions of years before we were here.

~Namaste

edit on 11-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

Perfect post. Global warmingerer's (im copyrighting that ) fail to realize that, we're not saying the earth isn't warming, we are saying that humans can't affect earth's temperature. Ive read replies in this thread saying "Well even if people don't effect warming, were still making the earth cleaner!" That is true, but the people profiting billions of dollars attained that money through the idea that humans caused this possible change. Follow the money baby.

50 Top Astronauts?

I didn't know there were 50 who would sign anything -- nor were experts on climate -- nor that someone had made a decision who was "top" or "lesser" astronauts.

Well that is impressive.

It's a good thing that America is quickly becoming irrelevant in science and the future of the world I suppose. So nobody takes us seriously as we fight for the rights of sperm to be protected from death by horny teenagers, nor follows America's lead on climate change or the future of energy.

It so doesn't matter what a bunch of nitwits think as they fight over Global Warming as most scientists are now working out "what can we do now that the SHTF scenario is here?"

Do I care about the excuses and theories you guys come up with when there is flooding in Florida? No, not a bit. Keep up the hard work proving to everyone that things are not as they appear.

reply to post by capone1

Perfect post. Global warmingerer's (im copyrighting that ) fail to realize that, we're not saying the earth isn't warming, we are saying that humans can't affect earth's temperature. Ive read replies in this thread saying "Well even if people don't effect warming, were still making the earth cleaner!" That is true, but the people profiting billions of dollars attained that money through the idea that humans caused this possible change. Follow the money baby.

Oh, you aren't saying it's not getting warmer anymore -- now you quibble that we "can't do anything". Shouldn't the credibility of the FIRST argument effect someone's credibility on the second?

Take any closed system in equilibrium and if you change a TINY fraction of the input or output, the system will change. Humans dredge swamps, put up black tar roofs and streets, and output about 100x the amount of Carbon as Volcanoes do. IF our NET IMPACT does not respond to the environment -- then it will change the system.

Doesn't matter how tiny you think we are -- but we've got a sargasso sea of trash twice the size of Texas in the Pacific -- so I guess your credibility is once again lacking.


>> I've also decided that constantly trying to talk Deniers and all the other crazy people I meet on a regular basis off the ledge, is a total waste of time.

They are not going to listen, I'm telling you. Why? Because they are in the mindset that they will shed blood than crush their own ideals or even drop them.

No matter how many signatures there are, no matter how many people say "we have proof", no matter how many time these scientist are shown the real proof, they will still shed blood before they drop their ideals.

This is how bad and how dangerous the mindset called "Doublethink" is.

Can't we just stop making so much pollution? Can't we just buy what we need for a change? Can't we buy local and support our local economy for a change. Get a pole and toss a worm in the lake and sit there drinking a local made beer. Sit around a campfire made with trees that died naturally and weren't killed. Learn how easy life should be. True environmentalism costs little. It can be stress relieving. Environmentalism doesn't need to make you crazy and a protestor. If we learn not to consume more than we need the bad weather will eventually go away.

I'm guessing iq's have dropped significantly in the past decade as it should be obvious since a single volcanic eruption places more co2 in the atmosphere than man has created in all his existence that any savings from mans reduction is immediately negated by 1 eruption that it doesn't make sense to force conservation when so many disbelieve the original voodoo hypothesis.

Originally posted by tmeister182
I'm guessing iq's have dropped significantly in the past decade as it should be obvious since a single volcanic eruption places more co2 in the atmosphere than man has created in all his existence that any savings from mans reduction is immediately negated by 1 eruption that it doesn't make sense to force conservation when so many disbelieve the original voodoo hypothesis.

That's complete and utter nonsense and scientifically incorrect. My guess is, you heard that on some clownish channel like Fox "News"

Originally posted by Danbones
"The science is settled"
funny
the whole point of scientific method is
so that anyone can do an experiment and settle it for them selves
( it was really invented back when the elites were the amature "scientists" and disputes were settled on the field of honor...with dueling pistoles...a good shot could keep 2+2 = 3 for ages.
Throw in a priest or two and a couple politicians and you even could make it ILLEGAL to point out 2+2=4)

the whole world domination/giant thumb thing is based on the new tythe being carbon taxes

Since the god thing is spawning too many divergent, out of control, philosophies, the uberputzes need a new religion, one that they can control.
To do that you need priests on the take.
Al Gore the man bear pig's new seaside mansion is the perfect example of this.

partake in disseminating the fairy tale and you will get to be a hall monitor.

edit on 11-4-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

How right you are. I'm reading a book called Mathematics for the Million by Lancelot Hogben. In it, he states that there was a deliberate conspiracy by the priest castes of ancient Egypt and Iraq to keep mathematics (especially geometry) from the masses, because being able to predict things like eclipses and floods brought in good coin and notoriety. Ergo, the grubs weren't allowed to study this stuff on their own.

He even points out that we can thank Plato and his ilk for keeping mathematics a "mystical plaything" for the elite - which even Carl Sagan ascribes to in his Cosmos series.

Who knows what is really going on.

Its all a distraction. The main focus needs to be sustainability. Nobody can dispute that. at some point, we will run out of resources, unless we change to a sustainable lifestyle. Is global warming real? WHO CARES! The point is we must change our lifestyle and especially our energy usage and sources to renewable.
I personally think global warming is a crock; mainly because Al Gore says its real, and also because there are 2 ends of the equation - carbon sources and carbon sinks. Trees are great sinks, and yet we continue to deforest the planet. If global warming was a serious issue it would be illegal to cut a tree down, especially when it is to be replaced by more stuff that is spewing out carbon and other pollutants.
But if you follow the money, you understand the deception.
If we suddenly decided we had to become sustainable, the balance of power would change from big oil to big solar, wind, geothermal etc.
Here is Sydney Australia, we had the choice of spending many $billions on either a) a desal plant that causes environmental havoc and chews up heaps of energy (and built by the corp where the former premier now has a cushy job!) or b) give every household a rain water tank and grey water recycling.
One of these is sustainable and the other just stupid.
One would shift the $$$ to plumbers and rain water tanks manufacturers. All good for economy and all sustainable. The other gives the current wealthy more $$$ and is not sustainable.
Follow the money and you will understand the this and all the other cons TPTB are dumping on us.

Originally posted by capone1

Originally posted by ken10
nzclimatescience.net...

My view has always been: Warmer temps = more water evaporation = more clouds = COOLER Earth......Which means the Earth has inbuilt safety devices.

Clouds ARE NOT water vapor.

Nearly spat my tea out reading that

Educate yourself

unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

I think we know at least one other particular topic where this isn't the case...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

The climate change we've experienced over the past 35 years normally happens over the course of over 1000 years. None of the natural factors you listed (sun, volcanos, magnetosphere, etc.) changed to the point where it would explain the hike in temperatures...the only factor that really changed is MEN polluting.

I usually enjoy your posts, but I think you're way off base on this one.... Please provide some sort of evidence to back up your claim.

There have been many measured changes to the sun, the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by volcanoes, changes in ozone, methane released from ocean deposits and permafrost, etc. that COULD all be contributing to changes in temperature. I'd like to see your evidence that proves otherwise.

It's pretty simple... our most advanced computers in the world are used to predict weather and hurricanes, and WE STILL CAN'T FORECAST IT CORRECTLY!!!! What makes you think that you're calculations are right, or that there is some magnificent computer model that can accurately predict the effect from HUMANS if we can't even get the calculations right based on the variables that we ALREADY KNOW to predict and forecast local weather? Take the number of inaccurate weather forecasts and multiply that by 10000 because that's how often they get it wrong.

Again... complete arrogance on your part to believe that we are capable of such a feat. The IPCC even admits that our measuring is archaic compared to what is needed to truly determine the correct variables needed to build accurate climate models.

You're point about the last 35 years is a geological sliver of time for how long we've been keeping track of temperatures, and I think it's incredible ignorant to take that at face value without considering the trends over thousands of years, which is more indicative of climate change.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Ice cores

and I think it's incredible ignorant to take that at face value without considering the trends over thousands of years

The current levels of greenhouse gases is now at its highest in 650,000 years...and not only that, the RATE OF CHANGE is also at a record high: LINK

There you go! So now that you have 100% proof, I take it you will quit YOUR ignorance and start believing in climate change?

And no, the reason for this aren't sun cycles (which last 11 years and wouldn't explain this change), volcanos (no more now than a few hundred years ago), or all of the other nonsense people list as reason. The only factor that changed over that enormous timeframe is US and our pollution. Of course if you watch certain "media outlets" you will be convinced otherwise because they pretend it's just a natural cycle...which data shows it clearly isn't.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Ice cores

Wow, I'm actually surprised at your lack of research... you call that 100% proof? That just shows how little you understand about the scientific method and how quick you are to be a cheerleader rather than a scientist or researcher.

First of all, your link is almost 4 years old and there have been a lot of revelations and changes in climate science since that time, including but not limited to the Climate Gate incident that occurred in 2009, demonstrating that data had in fact been manipulated to produce the "hockey stick" that is referred to in your quote of the change in the last 35 years. The last 35 years are not based on ice cores because there is not enough compounding within the ice to take a sample, so that discredits your source's quote.

I don't deny that CO2 has increased, but did you ever stop to think that if the planet gets warmer FIRST, that the natural consequence would be a release of CO2? How about the fact that we are coming OUT of an ice-age, so the other natural consequence to that would be warming, and not cooling?

Secondly, you referred to a QUOTE of a single researcher's opinion, and not any empirical data about ice cores. The scientific method is based on showing a preponderance of verifiable evidence, NOT the lack thereof to validate a claim. You must disprove ALL other theories before yours is accepted, and that is where AGW has failed miserably - it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Ice cores are not a preponderance of evidence, and if you had dome some research before posting a rather weak reference, you would have found that what the ice cores have CLEARLY demonstrated within all climate science circles, is that CO2 increase LAGS behind temperature increase by about 800 years, and this is NOT currently disputed, which is why the tenuous debate has died down so much. The Al Gore graphs don't show this because they are showing an extremely wide period of data condensed down so that you can not see the smaller, more subtle changes and correlation between the two, which is intentional, otherwise it would be easy to determine that the correlation is not true, as AGW proponents would argue.

And from your own source:

The WAIS Divide Ice Core Project is specifically investigating the small timing offsets between past changes in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and changes in temperature.

Those timing offsets are more important than the measurements of the gases themselves because the can very clearly determine if one is cause or effect. You, like many others who really don't understand the science involved in climate study, or the scientific process, choose to ignore these scientific FACTS.

You completely exclude variables such as methane (far worse than CO2), Milankovich cycles, cosmic ray increase, Pacific Decadel Oscillation, water vapor, feedback sensitivity and a host of other factors that are PROVEN to have a direct effect on the Earth's climate. These are not "nonsense" as you so conveniently state, it is hard science that has been correlated and peer-reviewed across several areas of study. All you are doing is cherry picking data to suit your argument and NOT considering all of the data that is out there.

To put the argument more simply, the greenhouse effect is based on a "closed" system, like a greenhouse, which the Earth is not. The Earth is an "open" system because it radiates heat back into space. Therefore, comparing the science to that of a greenhouse is a complete farce in itself. Greenhouse gases in a greenhouse are not representative of how atmospheric physics works, and would completely violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat rises, so to claim that gases in the atmosphere "force" the warmer air to change GROUND temperatures is idiotic. There are several hundred peer-reviewed papers demonstrating what an utter failure it is to try and relate the Earth's atmospheric conditions to that of a greenhouse and how the AGW theory uses 'guesstimates in the scientific properties involved to "calculate" the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers'.

Here is the actual RAW Vostok ice core data referenced and broken down into smaller increments so that you can see temperature rising BEFORE CO2 and here is the same data for CO2 - here.

If you want to debate this, I'm happy to, but be prepared to get dirty with the details, otherwise I, nor anyone else, will take you seriously.

~Namaste

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

There you go! So now that you have 100% proof, I take it you will quit YOUR ignorance and start believing in climate change?

edit on 13-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

This further demonstrates your own ignorance by taking one article and a single quote from one researcher, which is not even discussed in the article, just mentioned in passing by the researcher, as "100% proof".

Here are some credible references that are peer-reviewed and accepted by the climate science community:

Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics

Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be

Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)


Temperature change and CO2 change: a scientific briefing

The ClimateGate Emails Explained

ClimateGate: 30 Years In The Making

Last 30 Years Shows Climate Feedback at ZERO

The 800-Year Lag Graphed

Please take the time to read the sources before you come back with your argument. I have spent countless hours doing research and working with data involved in these studies and am not going to have an honest debate with you (or anyone else) unless you have some facts behind you and can do so without cheerleading for a political cause. It is rather insulting to people who have skin in the game and aren't basing their conclusions around political affiliation. Science is not politics and should never have any influence from them, yet they have, and I don't think you or anyone else can deny that.

If you're interested in learning about something you don't know or understand, I am more than happy to explain things and take the time to present a well rounded case, but without having examined both sides of the debate, as you and others clearly have not, it is a frivolous effort.

~Namaste

80% of the world's forests are gone. Forever.
Why would we plant a tree or three when some corporation will reap 1,000 trees for every tree I planted!

So, even if I planted 100 trees it will not the answer problem of corporations raping the planet.

And Harrison Schmitt's opinion about global warming is well known. He is a fervent anti-communist, he has stated on more than one occasion that big "C" Communism created & funded the environmental movements around the world. Harrison Schmidt is an unrepentant capitalist running dog.

He doesn't give a rat's a$$ about this planet, he wants to ship Helium3 from the moon to Earth to supply us with energy.

In other words, Harrison Schmitt is a long time Republican supporter of raping the planet. His signature on this letter means absolutely nothing. Schmitt is clearly promoting the agenda of fossil fuel interests.

According to Schmitt, "Given what we actually know about climate, as well as the remaining uncertainties, Americans should think long and hard before giving up liberties and incomes to politicians and bureaucrats who just want to 'do something' to satisfy a particular special interest." He describes climate change legislation as a "long-term political agenda to gather power at the expense of liberty." www.desmogblog.com...

Let's take Harrison Schmitt off that list because it has been shown that Schmitt has his own "long-term political agenda" .... namely, anti-environmentalism and pro-capitalism.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Ok, I'll bite... so we drop him from the list because he is open about his political ideology, which is more honest than most of the AGW proponents. In this case, he happens to lean right.

His points are still valid. We should NOT give up liberties under the guise of an environmental cause without hard science to back it up. Everyone on this forum already knows that the media is bought and paid for by the same groups that serve political interests, so "they" will never give you the real facts surrounding the debate, only what will advance their agendas.

I don't like fossil fuels, but understand their place in the world today. Just because he supports the same doesn't mean that his motivations to denounce man-made global warming makes his concerns about REAL global warming illegitimate. He is bashing NASA for not considering all of the data and being biased. That is fair, regardless of whether or not he has interests in oil.

Please take the time to review some of the other information I've posted, I think you'll find it enlightening.

~Namaste

I hate to point this out, but big oil wants AGW to be real.

They want carbon taxes, they want carbon trading.

Why?

Because they have the resources to be in the top tiers of these money making schemes. In fact, most already are.

Just something for everybody to think about before accusing any petro funded scientist of being a shill.

Let me further add, that in case people don't understand what a peer-reviewed publication means...

It's not just having your professor buddy look at your paper, flip through a few pages and give you a thumbs up before it's published.

It is scrutinized, in some cases there are experiments conducted to verify, and meticulously review and verify every reference and claim that is made or theorized, and these people aren't likely your friends. They are other scientists in the same or related fields who also write papers and follow a strict scientific method.

When something is peer-reviewed and published in a journal like Nature, it holds an enormous amount of weight in the community. A good portion of the material I linked in my previous post is in fact, peer-reviewed. Some of it is pending publication in journals, and some of it summarizes or makes reference to the peer-reviewed papers themselves. (when you make a references to another's work, it doesn't have to be peer-reviewed again)

I just wanted to point this out before I get a list of outdated links to old papers, or links to websites that don't make a single references to a creditable field of climate science (like meteorology or atmospheric physics ARE).

I really don't want to get into pissing contests with people or start pulling out ruler's to have a measuring contest if you catch my drift... I'm honestly trying to educate people so that you don't follow a political rhetoric based on junk science, vote for people because of politics, not science, and take science a bit more seriously than just a quote from a regurgitated article on the web.

~Namaste

I am kind of confused by this letter, as NASA has released data that disproves global warming. Maybe they should have written this letter last year?

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Wed, Jul 27, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Link

This article states that the UN models are wrong, maybe they need to write to the UN instead?