Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: Bilk22

Hi Bilk,

could you post a link to that graph so I could read more about it.

Thanks.

Here's the link. Someone took the time to actually look at ALL the available data and not just some of it.

a reply to: Bilk22
The spikes just "happen" to coincide with the industrial revolution, man has nothing to do with it.

Check out the chart of lobbyists. I think you are on the wrong side of this conspiracy. A very foolish side to be on.

You do realize that we don't have another planet standing by.

a reply to: mc_squared

And in response to that, the Earth is greening.

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...

I find the whole Climate Change thing to be a bit self centered. Thinking that we are solely to blame is pretty grandiose. Not that pollution is good, but I think it's effect on us as a species, and the rest of the fauna of Earth on a personal level is more important. Cancer, Asthma, etc.

Earth has cooled, and warmed MANY times before we were supposedly responsible.

I believe it has more to do with the giant nuclear furnace at the center of our solar system, that effects the whole planetary system. It's cyclic.

Haha, former NASA researcher, as if that provides any context on this elderly British man. His discipline is (defined broadly) chemical engineering, which is only somewhat related to climate science. These two years of work are all I can find from him that might be related to NASA. I haven't looked exhaustively, but with those NASA credentials attached to his name, it ought to be trivial to find (and it isn't).

The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

This statement by him is mostly true, but shortsighted. He does not seem to understand the cascading effects of introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere: even more water vapor and the release of trapped methane.

By the way, bringing up the research ship trapped in Antarctic sea ice is really not a refutation of anything. It's basically "it's cold here, therefore no warming" and meaningless.

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.

Please look at the numbers on the right side. Notice how insignificantly different they are? Each seemingly big jump is half a degree Celsius. The average global temperature is now projected to rise 2.5 degrees Celsius in a low emissions scenario by 2100. That's basically a best-case scenario at this point, and look where that would fall on your chart: just shy of the -29.00 mark, higher than any point in the last 3,000 years. A more pessimistic scenario is a rise of 4 degrees Celsius.

originally posted by: jrod
I've never seen any proof of global warming. Perhaps if the sea level rises like some predict I will retract what I have said about GW.

Sea levels have been rising for some time. This has been a slow process.

originally posted by: Bilk22
You have proved nothing other than CO2 levels are higher at one time vs another.

Context: the scientist in the article stated that there had been no rise in CO2. mc_squared doesn't have to prove anything else. The quoted scientist is easily, demonstrably wrong on this point.

originally posted by: phantomjack
Wrong. The fact is that the Global Warming crowd are always quick to use "NASA Science" as evidence of their agenda.

This man is not a climate scientist. He is (broadly) a chemical engineer. I can't find what this scientist was even involved in related to NASA. Perhaps you can, since you buy that line? I've looked a bit, but alas... no luck.

originally posted by: DogMeat
The earth has been in a warming cycle for the last 14 years and now is cycling. It will now go into a cooling cycle " Maunder Minimum"
the Sun cycles every 11 years or so, hence warming and cooling.

The Maunder Minimum refers to a particular period in time. It is not a general term for a solar minimum. The last solar minimum is probably responsible for a some of the so-called pause in global temperatures, since it sits in the time frame for much of it.

a reply to: namehere

First off where did I say the rate of warming is on par with past warmings? I was talking about magnitude, which is totally different than rate. The rate of warming today is certainly exceptional and it's by far one of the biggest problems here, because it's leaving our ecosystems with not enough time to properly adjust. Furthermore even comparing magnitudes is unfair since we are only in the beginning of what's happening, so if you really want to compare magnitudes then wait a few hundred years. Except at that point people will be too busy foraging for the last scraps of food on Earth if we continue emitting GHG's at the rate we are doing now.


But thanks for putting words in my mouth and then debunking them. Do you know what a strawman argument is?

And you guys wonder why nobody from the climate change camp is interested in debating you lol.

nice post, OP…

anyone wanting to support more controlling technocratic enslavement must love the "globe warming" hoax…

meanwhile, a simple google or youtube of the phrase "Climategate" will show VERY reputable scientists, some of whom were in charge of the IPCC, now speaking out against the hoax and things like "hundreds of dummy monitoring stations", etc
Climategate is Still the Issue
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: poncho1982

No one said that there aren't any other factors in climate change. The point is that man's activities are having a negative influence. Also it's significant to note that we may be nearing a tipping point that we should try to avoid if possible.

a reply to: poncho1982

Yes emitting more fossil fuels into our atmosphere will just make the planet greener and nicer, and everyone will be happy. Nevermind all the well-known negative consequences as well as things like ocean acidification. I recommend you guys all keep posting more and more articles from wattsupwiththat.com, which is funded by the Heartland Institute on behalf of concerned oil companies everywhere.

Better yet watch this video on the "greening of the planet Earth" which features also sorts of climate experts telling you how good it will be for all of us:



Just forget the fact this video was produced by Western Fuels Association, which happens to be a giant consortium of fossil fuel interests.

Clearly these guys are here to tell us the real TRUTH in the face of all the propaganda from these big bad scientists and environmentalists!

ETA - sorry for the snark, I realize from your other post you are just trying to add some balance. But seriously, wattsupwiththat is complete horsesh**.

a reply to: Verum1quaere

"anyone wanting to support more controlling technocratic enslavement must love the "globe warming" hoax… "

What is "controlling technocratic enslavement" ? I keep hearing strange terms like this. They sound like social programming.

If there is controlling technocratic enslavement it would be by the people in control, right?
The people in control are big energy, big oil, right?
Or do you mean people like Green Peace, or solar power manufactures are controlling us?

If anyone can get a chance to watch it, the episode of Cosmos last Sunday (or Monday for NatGeo) on 4/20 and 4/21 was about some of these topics being brought up.

One of the researchers that was hired to study emissions and their effects was fired by the oil company and automotive owned firm after his findings said burning fuel additives were poisoning us and the planet.

The oil company and automakers then went with and publicized their other scientist who said that burning fuel additives made no difference at all in humans and the environment.

It dealt mainly with lead, but I think that big business paradigm of profits over wellbeing of people and planet is very relevant to this thread.

This was 50-60 years ago.

For what it's worth, I've been reading ATS for a few years now and only once have I had anything to say or contribute to the various discussion. But the comments on this thread defies rational logic.

Man made global warming? I suppose in your narrow superstitious minds global cooling is the answer. If not then what, we forgo all modernity and live like neanderthals? Or is it closer to the global warmists real agenda of killing off 80% of the world's population?

Or is it that you people need a cause to lament over? The arrogance of people who are mere lice crawling on an elephant's ass is astounding.

As an engineer and a credible science historian, I can assure you that the scientific orthodoxy has been wrong about a great many things. Science is not based on consensus or computer modeling or anecdotal evidence. Science is indisputable demonstrable repeatable fact. What one believes is not scientific fact. If that were the case then I believe the earth is flat and can prove it.

a reply to: UUpentium

Man made global warming?
Yes, possibly. There may be long term trend but mankind is augmenting or extending it.

I suppose in your narrow superstitious minds global cooling is the answer.
No but we do not wish to actively contribute to our own demise.


If not then what, we forgo all modernity and live like neanderthals?
This has nothing to do with it. Acting responsibly doesn't have to change how we live one bit.


Or is it closer to the global warmists real agenda of killing off 80% of the world's population?
There are probably some people who want this but most are corporatists who delude themselves into believing whatever is
most profitable.

originally posted by: Greven

Sea levels have been rising for some time. This has been a slow process.

As someone who has grown on the ocean and the adjacent intercoastal waterway I can tell you there has not been a measurable sea level rise. Bridges that had 65' clearance in the 1980's still have 65' clearance today. Key West was used as proof of sea level rise until they figured out all the building on the island actually caused the island to sink a little.

I am an environmentalist and scientist at heart. I know we as a species are destroying the planet. If Global warming is true there is not much we can do about it. We can cut the amount of carbon we pump in the atmosphere, stop cutting down forests at an alarming rate, and possibly take more precautions to prevent our waters from being polluted.

a reply to: jrod

Hasn't risen much in the last 8000 years, but is rising at about 3mm per year.

If we hit a threshold and Greenland ice sheet begins to melt it will be a different story.

I offer my noob opinion that "science " isn't yet "big" enough to make hard and fast conclusions on the question....
There is insufficient data to make cause and effect claims as yet on whats causing the variations in average temperatures through historical ice records....
Some may be active volcanism....some may be unaccounted for factors that "science " has ignored or even ridiculed as anything to do with causation....(like electric universe theory, the solar system transiting a huge energy cloud at this time,in this section of space.... or many other possibly contributory factors that may bear....)
To entirely hang CO2 levels with this is totally a scam and a travesty to science and logic.....CO2 levels were much higher in the past at one time...The other planets NOT just Mars are warming too....
Yes, something is happening here.....but nobody knows what it is..................yet Mr Jones....

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.

The temperature has not moved for the last sixteen years, I presume 'it' is on holiday?
If it had been rising as you type, we would all be fried by now.

Something else, the great lakes ice cover is 1,000% above 'normal' Antarctic sea ice is at the most its ever been, (as far as the ice scientists know) so something is wrong somewhere, or someone.

originally posted by: defcon5
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.

You should probably accept that he, most likely, has a far more solid foundation in the process of mathematical simulations of chemical interactions on an industrial scale than most of the climate scientists. Chemical engineers endure a more rigorous curriculum of math and physics in general.

All those simulations the climate scientists are running where largely developed by chemical engineers.

If you are going to call for ignoring his opinion, you would appear as less of a fanatic by challenging his lack of empirical evidence or published findings.

-FBB

a reply to: fripw

3mm per year, that is 90mm over the last 30 years, or about 3.5". Sea level rise has yet to be proven. We do not have enough data points to truly prove/disprove Global warming.

That does not change the fact that we as a species are destroying our planet. I've been saying for years Global warming is a distraction from some of the major man-made environmental disasters that we continue to make and profit from.

All scientists know every field of science, right? An Astrophysicist is also a geologist and climatologist!