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.
Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense
page: 2share:
a reply to: eManym
Yes well, as it happens this particular gentleman in question is an Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester.
So, on top of working at NASA and founding a journal called Molecular Simulation I think its safe to say he is probably quite intelligent. Id even go so far to say that if you ever did meet him in real life he would probably be the smartest person you are ever likely to meet on a day to day basis.
Doesn't mean he is intelligent either
Yes well, as it happens this particular gentleman in question is an Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester.
So, on top of working at NASA and founding a journal called Molecular Simulation I think its safe to say he is probably quite intelligent. Id even go so far to say that if you ever did meet him in real life he would probably be the smartest person you are ever likely to meet on a day to day basis.
edit on 26-4-2014 by Bellor because: (no reason given)
So is any correlation between anthropogenetic CO2 emissions and any increase in atmospheric temperatures. Got proof of your theory or is it just plain anecdotal? See my graph above.
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: madmac5150
It's an OpEd slam piece written by a retired chemist who happened to work for NASA. If he had any real information or Data to counter things like rising CO2 emissions and their correlation to climate and temperature he would have written a paper and submitted it for peer review. That's how real proponents of science work. One telling quote from him is. The entire thing is so hilariously ironic because the entire interview is nothing BUT anecdotal. He supplies no data to back up his assertions, its nothing but the personal opinions of a marginalized old man( disclaimer, that last statement is just my opinion, not a statement of fact that I can support). By his own criteria, his statement is not significant.
Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, its not significant.
a reply to: MessageforAll
He was working at nasa Id guess.It said former nasa scientist.What,you expected him to cry foul while he was still working there?
He was working at nasa Id guess.It said former nasa scientist.What,you expected him to cry foul while he was still working there?
a reply to: beezzer
They can predict weather a week away?
LMAO --Not!
Their accuracy is about as good as mine (when I guess).
I haven't seen an accurate 5-day forcast in years, much less a full week forcast.
What kool-aid you been drinking?
[Still laughing]
They can predict weather a week away?
LMAO --Not!
Their accuracy is about as good as mine (when I guess).
I haven't seen an accurate 5-day forcast in years, much less a full week forcast.
What kool-aid you been drinking?
[Still laughing]
edit on 26-4-2014 by applesthateatpeople because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2014 by applesthateatpeople because: (no
reason given)
a reply to: madmac5150
I also think Global Warming is nonsense.. All the propaganda surrounding it is disgusting. Nefarious agendas are being planned founded off of this monstrous villian called Global warming/climate change.
I do believe humans are affecting the climate, but I think its mostly (fossil fuels play there part) due to the weaponization of the weather...I guess that compromises my opinion in this thread. Oh well
I also think Global Warming is nonsense.. All the propaganda surrounding it is disgusting. Nefarious agendas are being planned founded off of this monstrous villian called Global warming/climate change.
I do believe humans are affecting the climate, but I think its mostly (fossil fuels play there part) due to the weaponization of the weather...I guess that compromises my opinion in this thread. Oh well
edit on 26-4-2014 by Tucket because: (no reason given)
I know some predominant older people...who would deny anything that could possibly negatively effect their lifestyle.
People with something to lose would be more prone to deny something that could negatively effect them. The lifestyle changes needed to correct this properly would negatively effect most people here in America. A tax won't fix this problem.
Burning fossil fuels is only a small part of this problem. To fix this it would require a major overhaul of society to a simpler lifestyle, growing foods locally and cleaning up the bad chemistry we are allowing to be utilized. Computers would be almost necessary to accomplish this. Making laws to stop some of the actions of consumerism would be essential.
A lot of new local small businesses and farms would actually create the American Dream again. It seems like the new American Dream is working for a big corporation punching keys on a computer.
People with something to lose would be more prone to deny something that could negatively effect them. The lifestyle changes needed to correct this properly would negatively effect most people here in America. A tax won't fix this problem.
Burning fossil fuels is only a small part of this problem. To fix this it would require a major overhaul of society to a simpler lifestyle, growing foods locally and cleaning up the bad chemistry we are allowing to be utilized. Computers would be almost necessary to accomplish this. Making laws to stop some of the actions of consumerism would be essential.
A lot of new local small businesses and farms would actually create the American Dream again. It seems like the new American Dream is working for a big corporation punching keys on a computer.
originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: beezzer
They can predict weather a week away?
LMAO --Not!
Their accuracy is about as good as mine (when I guess).
I haven't seen an accurate 5-day forcast in years, much less a full week forcast.
What kool-aid you bwen drinking?
[Still laughing]
That is exactly how it works in my neck of the woods... don't like the forecast? Wait a day... it will change...
a reply to: DeepImpactX
You are probably right, there seems to be a way of thinking that is Global Warming or Bust. And if this NASA employee found the numbers to be wrong and knew they were wrong there is not a damn thing one in his position can say about it. He is an employee of the government and the government has already communicated its position on this. If you are not a 'Global Warmest' you are an enemy. Period. They would rather people live the lie and keep paying through their blood for their sins for the ill conceived effect their very existence has even if they have done everything in their power to conserve and be green. Only this way can they keep riding the money train to justify the majestic increases that have been imposed on us and to ram through more increases even though they do nothing to stop the carbon from burning. It is in their hands to make drastic changes, not ours. Enough already. Baby, it's cold outside.
You are probably right, there seems to be a way of thinking that is Global Warming or Bust. And if this NASA employee found the numbers to be wrong and knew they were wrong there is not a damn thing one in his position can say about it. He is an employee of the government and the government has already communicated its position on this. If you are not a 'Global Warmest' you are an enemy. Period. They would rather people live the lie and keep paying through their blood for their sins for the ill conceived effect their very existence has even if they have done everything in their power to conserve and be green. Only this way can they keep riding the money train to justify the majestic increases that have been imposed on us and to ram through more increases even though they do nothing to stop the carbon from burning. It is in their hands to make drastic changes, not ours. Enough already. Baby, it's cold outside.
The way I see it is the Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial is a scientific fact.
The two camps keep changing the goalposts though.
Whatever...by the time the climate changes for better or for worst. I'll be long gone.
The two camps keep changing the goalposts though.
Whatever...by the time the climate changes for better or for worst. I'll be long gone.
oh please give me a break. global warming is a real thing. and anyone can call themselves a whatever, a ex-nasa scientist in this case.
In all fairness if it does effect it then there will be a measurable variance in how our atmosphere interacts with solar radiation. But to prove that
means dedicating a great deal of your astronomical infrastructure to verifying the simulations.
Space people are not doing that cause they would rather spend money on stuff like Hubble. Because they know chances are there problem is radical weather spikes happening but much like the rest of the universe it seems to be fairly cyclical.
That is not to say though that many in the field of astronomy do not study solar radiation and its effects on our atmosphere. It is of course a heavily invested field of Astrophysics. Anyone ever happen to watched some footage of NASAS cameras beam straight at the sun is one good example that tells people that is a very high degree of study.
Space people are not doing that cause they would rather spend money on stuff like Hubble. Because they know chances are there problem is radical weather spikes happening but much like the rest of the universe it seems to be fairly cyclical.
That is not to say though that many in the field of astronomy do not study solar radiation and its effects on our atmosphere. It is of course a heavily invested field of Astrophysics. Anyone ever happen to watched some footage of NASAS cameras beam straight at the sun is one good example that tells people that is a very high degree of study.
edit on 26-4-2014 by Bellor
because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2014 by Bellor because: (no reason given)
a reply to: whatnext21
Wish I could give you more than 1 star for that one...
When news outlets ban a viewpoint (and many have when it comes to anti-warmests), then I contend that it becomes a viewpoint worth exploring...
Media and government dislike those that offer an idea outside of their paradigm... it hurts their control system...
Wish I could give you more than 1 star for that one...
When news outlets ban a viewpoint (and many have when it comes to anti-warmests), then I contend that it becomes a viewpoint worth exploring...
Media and government dislike those that offer an idea outside of their paradigm... it hurts their control system...
In my personal opinion climate change is occurring. With that said however, I believe these changes to be a natural progression that has taken place
for millions of years. Ice ages, warm spells, mini-ice ages, etc. come and go every so often, and I think that if humans live here long enough, they
will come to realize this inevitable fact about the earth. I just cannot buy the claim that man is causing global warming, although it is obvious that
he is putting tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. But I think the earth has proved herself quite willing to balance out the equation by
stabilizing the system, despite these large doses of CO2. It is nothing that is going to severely alter the composition of the atmosphere in my
opinion.
a reply to: madmac5150
Not that i disagree with his views on so-called climate change (THE biggest money spinner scam), but if this guy was a NASA scientist, i would have expected him to know the Earth is at least 4,000 million years old, possibly 4,500 million years old in fact...not 1000 million years.
Takes away from the rest of what he said.
The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago.
Not that i disagree with his views on so-called climate change (THE biggest money spinner scam), but if this guy was a NASA scientist, i would have expected him to know the Earth is at least 4,000 million years old, possibly 4,500 million years old in fact...not 1000 million years.
Takes away from the rest of what he said.
No one can tell me that the climate hasn’t changed since the industrial revolution, NASA scientist or not.
It is OFF the COURSE of its natural pace and we are directly responsible for what is coming. These guys and a like pave the way for naturalize the (electromagnetic and radiological pollutions) we are facing for decades too.
It is OFF the COURSE of its natural pace and we are directly responsible for what is coming. These guys and a like pave the way for naturalize the (electromagnetic and radiological pollutions) we are facing for decades too.
originally posted by: beezzer
When climate scientists can predict weather a week away correctly, Ill pay more attention to what they have to say when they predict what the weather will be 100 years from now.
Science once thought the earth was flat.
Science once thought women could not get higher education because of their wee brains.
But this time, science is somehow infallible.
(roll eyes)
[SNIP]editby]edit on 26-4-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)
Science seems to make it possible to fly, have tv's, use computers to write your nonsense etc etc Your statement is ridiculous.
Hang on when the earth was flat we didn't have computers did we. A point that is beyond your grasp.
originally posted by: Bilk22
When you can explain this graph, then I'll start listening. Until then, what any global warming kook has to say is folly.
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.
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.
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.
Rising exponentially? The person who said "hang him" made more sense.
I don't think we need much more evidence of the fanatical nature of the AGW crowd.
He's a Professor of Chemical Engineering at the
University of Manchester School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science. In other words this
guys field of study has nothing to do with the climate, and is vastly more aligned with the Oil/Energy industry. Why should we listen to anything has
to say on the subject, especially compared to those in the correct fields of research at organizations such as NASA and NOAA.
Global Warming, I mean Climate Change...I mean whatever they're calling it now, is the biggest scam going. With Religion taking a big downturn
Climate Change and Race are the big money makers, outside of Politics, just go ask the Als, Gore and Sharpton. While they fly around on private jets
and wine and dine the 1%ers and celebs.