This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

NASA needs to be living up to its name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If you're unfamiliar with the term "aeronautics", it quite literally means navigating air.

NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)... you know them right? They're one of many groups that can't even tell you if it'll rain in the next hour. THEY should be watching the oceans and atmosphere, not NASA.

From the wiki place:

Purpose and function
NOAA plays several specific roles in society, the benefits of which extend beyond the US economy and into the larger global community:
A Supplier of Environmental Information Products. NOAA supplies information to its customers and partners pertaining to the state of the oceans and the atmosphere. This is clearly manifest in the production of weather warnings and forecasts through the National Weather Service, but NOAA's information products extend to climate, ecosystems, and commerce as well.
A Provider of Environmental Stewardship Services. NOAA is also the steward of U.S. coastal and marine environments. In coordination with federal, state, local, tribal, and international authorities, NOAA manages the use of these environments, regulating fisheries and marine sanctuaries as well as protecting threatened and endangered marine species.
A Leader in Applied Scientific Research. NOAA is intended to be a source of accurate and objective scientific information in the four particular areas of national and global importance identified above: ecosystems, climate, weather and water, and commerce and transportation.

*emphasis added.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It should be noted that this was predicted back in January when Ted Cruz took over looking after NASA and science.

Oh Good Grief!

Admit it. You just don't like Cruz.

PS, I thought you were libertarian.

First, Cruz isn't a Libertarian and he wouldn't BE a Liberatarian if he tried. Cruz is just a religious nutter, statist. Second, I don't support any politician that is a science denialist. That is just stupid and I don't want blatant stupidity running the country.

Science denialist?

Why because he doesn't support a conclusion you do? You seem awfully liberal about this issue, almost religiously so. There is plenty of data that suggests that Global Warming hasn't occurred now for a little over 18 years. There are plenty of reasons to question the so called consensus, not least of which is that consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

If I told you the computer models are all pretty much wrong, am I a "science denier?" Because they are. They are wildly inaccurate, they can't hindcast and if you force them to hindcast, they can't forecast the same. The long and the short of it is that we are being fed predictions based on an incomplete understanding of the system.

Scientists don't understand all the impact that the sun and its activity or lack thereof has on the system.

They don't understand how the oceans interact with the atmosphere in terms of heat conduction, not fully and not in terms of AMO/PDO cycles.

And don't forget that we've only been keeping truly accurate data on all of it for a mere eyeblink, so to look at a trend in that miniscule dataset and definitively say for certain sure that we know A, B, or C about it in relation to the rest of the planet's climate history is hubris because we really don't. Not for sure.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You do realize that the big losers in humanities quest to curve CO2 emissions is the Oil Industry?

I do not get how you guys think this is some conspiracy by the scientists to raise taxes, when we have been getting bent over and owned by the oil/coal elitists for over a century now.

Is it NOT possible that this fear of being taxed to death over CO2 emissions is unfounded and nothing but a dirty trick by those with interest in Big Oil to keep their business going as usual?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Science denialist?

Why because he doesn't support a conclusion you do? You seem awfully liberal about this issue, almost religiously so. There is plenty of data that suggests that Global Warming hasn't occurred now for a little over 18 years. There are plenty of reasons to question the so called consensus, not least of which is that consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

No, because he is a science denialist. Everyone who questions that man-made climate change is happening, hasn't thoroughly looked at the science to see that it is real. The idiot also denies evolution, by the way.

If I told you the computer models are all pretty much wrong, am I a "science denier?" Because they are. They are wildly inaccurate, they can't hindcast and if you force them to hindcast, they can't forecast the same. The long and the short of it is that we are being fed predictions based on an incomplete understanding of the system.

Being wrong doesn't mean that the theory is incorrect though. The forecast models may not be 100% correct because we don't have the necessary data to make them so. But that is just how science works. Nothing is 100% correct when it comes to science.

Scientists don't understand all the impact that the sun and its activity or lack thereof has on the system.

They don't understand how the oceans interact with the atmosphere in terms of heat conduction, not fully and not in terms of AMO/PDO cycles.

And don't forget that we've only been keeping truly accurate data on all of it for a mere eyeblink, so to look at a trend in that miniscule dataset and definitively say for certain sure that we know A, B, or C about it in relation to the rest of the planet's climate history is hubris because we really don't. Not for sure.

You do realize that scientists can look at the history of climate through ice core samples right?

ETA: It's interesting I brought up Cruz once in passing and you jump down my throat on his politics. He isn't even the congressmen being discussed in the OP.

a reply to: tridentblue

Doing the math of the earths heating up from the ice age until now and then subtracting the co2 component of the human induced warming would = ? . Is it even a measurable amount in ppm ? And then you have to convert the ppm to energy conserved ,and seeing we do not have a closed system like a real green house and have negative feed backs to the system our total would be ?? Oh here let a professor of physics tell you what the total human induced component of AGW is due to co2

a reply to: ketsuko

There is NO data that concludes the world has NOT been warming for 18 years now.

You are blindly following a false tale, while ignoring what 97% of the scientists who study this are telling us.

With great claims like that, we need evidence to back it up. None of you who claim the Earth was NOT warmed in 18 years bring any evidence that supports that claim!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it's also how we know that the Earth has had many climates, both much colder and much warmer, some of them as recent as the Medieval Warm Period where the climate was actually warmer than it is now and *gasp* our modern eco-systems were flourishing.

But again, the direct, in depth data set isn't there. All the little fluctuations and trends that our scientists point at on a daily basis and gasp over, the fine details, the heat waves that we are told to fear ... we don't see those to know how common or not those are or were. We don't have that kind of set to see and can't really reconstruct it.

PS, Life has also flourished with much higher CO2 levels, In fact, historically speaking, our current levels are on the low end from what we can determine. I am not advocating wholesale pollution, only pointing that out.

I want NASA to fund space exploration not the religion of climate change.

If you want to measure Earth temperatures get the United Nations to fund it or the Europeans. Our public money shouldn't be wasted on the climate zealots. Separation of church and state works both ways.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ketsuko

There is NO data that concludes the world has NOT been warming for 18 years now.

You are blindly following a false tale, while ignoring what 97% of the scientists who study this are telling us.

With great claims like that, we need evidence to back it up. None of you who claim the Earth was NOT warmed in 18 years bring any evidence that supports that claim!

The 97% number was constructed through a charade of statistics.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ketsuko

There is NO data that concludes the world has NOT been warming for 18 years now.

You are blindly following a false tale, while ignoring what 97% of the scientists who study this are telling us.

With great claims like that, we need evidence to back it up. None of you who claim the Earth was NOT warmed in 18 years bring any evidence that supports that claim!

The 97% number was constructed through a charade of statistics.

You are arguing with religious zealots from the 'Church of Climatology'.

You can't win with facts.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it's also how we know that the Earth has had many climates, both much colder and much warmer, some of them as recent as the Medieval Warm Period where the climate was actually warmer than it is now and *gasp* our modern eco-systems were flourishing.

This isn't the first time that humans have altered the climate by the way.
Research team suggests European Little Ice Age came about due to reforestation in New World

But again, the direct, in depth data set isn't there. All the little fluctuations and trends that our scientists point at on a daily basis and gasp over, the fine details, the heat waves that we are told to fear ... we don't see those to know how common or not those are or were. We don't have that kind of set to see and can't really reconstruct it.

PS, Life has also flourished with much higher CO2 levels, In fact, historically speaking, our current levels are on the low end from what we can determine. I am not advocating wholesale pollution, only pointing that out.

I know life has flourished with much higher CO2 levels, but that doesn't mean that the life currently on the planet can do that. Maybe smaller and less complex organisms, but I'd wager that humans wouldn't be able to survive at highly elavated CO2 levels.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I want NASA to fund space exploration not the religion of climate change.

If you want to measure Earth temperatures get the United Nations to fund it or the Europeans. Our public money shouldn't be wasted on the climate zealots. Separation of church and state works both ways.

It is insulting to call science a religion... If you are going to debate the topic then prove it wrong. Calling it a religion is just a science denialism buzzphrase, probably cooked up straight in an Oil company's board room.

a reply to: jrod

You bring the economic component into the discussion and somehow think that they are not involved in the AGW scam but it's them that control the prices of oil and them that make the profits off oil . Ask yourself why they would allow the price to have been halved in the recent past . Do you think they are into a money loosing venture ? Do you think that the people who set the bench mark prices for oil are not beholding to the oil oligarchs ?

This is a part of a much bigger plan , ,, a new world order ..Why bother with all of those paper dollars when they can move to a digital $ and have the ability to suspend your's or mine when ever they choose . Think smart meter and the control of energy using the smart grid where they have all the information on all of us and then convert that info into a balance energy system based on co2 . we consume co2 and we put out co2 . do the math .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is insulting to call science a religion

Is religion not a means of worship ? Science is looking for truth and true religion looks for the truth . Difference is that one looks to the material world while the other looks to the spiritual world . Religion is a difference of text books and the beliefs about those text books .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

First off, get real. Humans cant do a thing to stop climate change (formerly called global warming).

Secondly, how about cutting NASA loose completely and let the private sector fill in the gap instead of spending taxpayers money???

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I just did a google news search for "global warming ppm" and got this:
www.ibtimes.co.uk...
Along with a million other articles, so yes someone is measuring the ppm, but I don't have skills in that area of science. I do see a consensus of scientists supporting the idea that it is happening, and I see this:
data.giss.nasa.gov...
From NASA. So things look like they're heating up.

You know how I really feel though? I feel like Cthulu is rising, and everyone awake is staring at it in horror. And then this ecologist runs up with a baby bird and is like "My God, if we don't act this could be extinct in 100 years!" And then this other guy runs up and he's like "no, don't listen to him, he's lying" while The Thing That Should Not Be moves toward us. Cthulu here represents the million other things that are coming into being in this century, from autonomous robots, AI, post-humanism coming into its own, and the hiatus I'm really worried about: the natural selection hiatus, coming to its end one way or another. Its just hard to care about AGW.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is insulting to call science a religion

Is religion not a means of worship ? Science is looking for truth and true religion looks for the truth . Difference is that one looks to the material world while the other looks to the spiritual world . Religion is a difference of text books and the beliefs about those text books .

Not. EVEN. close. Science is defined by the scientific method that requires us to gather evidence and use that evidence to describe a process in the universe; it updates itself regularly as new evidence is brought to light. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that is unchangeable. Religion doesn't leave room for being wrong. At no point do the religious ever consider that their beliefs could be wrong, because that would shake their faith. Science on the other hand REVELS in people doubting its claims.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Heard a scientist talking about it a day ago or so on KPFK here in the City of Angeles and this cut for 'earth sciences' includes NASA's weather services as well. Idiots (both of the low IQ type and of the bought and paid for type) are running the US. The absolute stupidity of this 'congress' is astonishing.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good! As a taxpayer I am happy to see at least some judicious use of my money rather than wasting it on crackpot theories which have gained "consensus" purely due to funding threats and shouting down of dissent.

Except that the consensus is across all countries with different funding mechanisms so your narrow minded US viewpoint is utter BS.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First off, get real. Humans cant do a thing to stop climate change (formerly called global warming).

Why not? What makes you so sure of this? To be honest, I may have even agreed with you if you had used the word "won't" instead of "can't". Humans definitely CAN stop man-made climate change. We just won't do it. As for natural climate change, it remains to be proven if humans can or cannot stop it or alter it. Saying can't is naive in the face of science.

Secondly, how about cutting NASA loose completely and let the private sector fill in the gap instead of spending taxpayers money???

Because the private sector requires you to produce something that will make the private sector money. If you can't do that, then no funding for you. Most climate change research (as well as the other things that NASA does) is unlikely to translate into a profitable venture to warrant private funding. Otherwise, it would have been done already.