Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

I think climate change is a part of natural cycles.

However human activities have led to it accellerating/changing at a faster and more extreme pace.. which could have negative consequences on human activities.

How is this a ponzi-scheme or a scam?

who benefits from climate change being accepted? (supposing it's not true)
(some politicians, maybe some technicians, and climate scientists)

who benefits from climate change not being accepted?
(*cough* highly influential, wealthy, industrial interests *cough*)

In any case I hope that polution is not denied at all; that pouring chemicals into the air and the water isn't going to lead to negative outcomes.

originally posted by: guohua

originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: guohua

Ahhhh the 70s. I remember watching a few of those as a kid... my parents swore by it, especially after the winter of 78.

Didn't pan out then... won't pan out now.

@Gianfar, I wasn't trying to come across with any DATA, any one with a Brain could see that!
Stop trying to be so smart and actually look and recognize what you're seeing, just because it doesn't fall into your very small and narrow thought pattern doesn't mean it's worthy.
Please Give Me An F, Coming From YOU, That's An A+.

Try presenting both sides so that people who aren't well read on it can at least postulate. Nothing worse than frying bacon behind a closed door. Where's the meat?

Thinking that 2000 years ago people were wearing light clothes all year long in the civilizations around the Mediterranean Sea like the Egyptian, the Hebrew, the Latin and the Greek can lead to one only result:

Last winter we saw snow inside Jerusalem! I am wondering, was the climate warmer back then or it is now?

Lions were living in nowadays Turkey and Greece. Today we see lions only in the areas around the equator. So i am wondering, do we need a former Nasa scientist to understand that Al Gore is a liar? Do we need a scientist to understand that he is a NWO's pawn?

Of course global warming is a myth. Yes the ice on the North Pole is melting, however the level/height of ice on the South Pole is raising.

So people, do we really need to rely on a scientist to understand that yet another pawn, yet another paid agent is lying to humanity?

We know how to make weather we're just not good at it.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName

How is this a ponzi-scheme or a scam?

The carbon-tax is exactly that. Pretty much all taxes and insurance payments are somewhat of a ponzi.

Like I've said hundred of times on here, the GW hype and debate is a distraction from bigger problems on this planet.

a reply to: jrod

you have a warped view on what taxes like a carbon tax are designed for.

they're designed to put pressure on the market to innovate, by charging for carbon emissions, the government encourages the development of technologies that don't emit as much carbon.

So he's a NASA scientist. So what? What's his field? NASA employees scientists from a wide variety of fields. Most of them not concerned with climatology. So what makes his opinion on the matter any more authoritative than yours, mine, Michio Kaku's, or Neil deGrasse Tyson's?

a reply to: jrod
There's plenty of proof. See the graphs I posted earlier.
We also can tell that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique fingerprint.
Clearing forests also releases large amounts of CO2. On top of that, plants and trees use CO2 to grow. Worldwide deforestation means we don't have as many trees to absorb the extra CO2.
This means more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, trapping more heat.

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 400 ppm. That's 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years.

Changes in the isotopic composition of carbon dioxide show that the carbon in the added carbon dioxide derives largely from plant materials, that is, from processes such as burning of biomass or fossil fuels, which are derived from fossil plant materials. Minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of oxygen show that the added carbon dioxide derives from burning of the plant materials. And concentrations of carbon dioxide in the ocean have increased along with the atmospheric concentrations, showing that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations cannot be a result of release from the oceans. All lines of evidence taken together make it unambiguous that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is human induced and is primarily a result of fossil fuel burning. (Similar reasoning can be evoked for other greenhouse gases, but for some of those, such as methane and nitrous oxide, their sources are not as clear as those of carbon dioxide.)

I could go on but I doubt you'll read this far.

a reply to: Bilk22

Your graph seems correct, changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (Milankovitch cycles) along with differing concentrations of GHGs (greenhouse gases) within the atmosphere are responsible for the Earth’s radiation balance, thus global warming and global cooling.

We are currently residing within an interstadial period which began ca. 14,000 years BP, although, on occasion, the climate has fluctuated back to relatively short lived cold periods, e.g. the Younger Dryas stadial, ca. 12,500 years BP, which lasted for about 1300 years and the little ice age which occurred just after the medieval warm period. However, the overall trend is one of warming, and, since the start of the industrial period, anthropogenically produced GHGs have been exacerbating this natural warming trend; which will probably lead to another ice age due to glacial melt water diluting the THC (thermohaline circulation) - thus cooling the northern and southern hemispheres to such an extent that the glaciers and ice sheets will come back with a vengeance and end up starting a new ice age due to the albedo effect.

a reply to: MessageforAll

How can you be sure that it's been rising on Mars? Have we measured every year like the Earth? In addition, even if it's rising, is it rising at an exponential rate? How does it compare to Mars' past history? There are a lot of details that one needs to answer, before you can say, well other planets are warming or the Earth has been warmer in the past, so it's not global warming. It says something that the anti-global warming crowd has to make up graphs to try to mislead people, this tells me their argument is so weak. Finally, who has the motive to deny global warming, clearly the oil companies and the people who love cars?

In addition, someone noted that the worst case scenario is a rise of 4 Celcius, 4 Celcius is equal to 7.2 Farenheit, that is rather significant. In fact, it's more than the hottest period and what one would start to consider the Ice Age. To see how much man has contributed, well, in the last 50 years, when the use of cars has started to become routine, the average temperature has risen by .8 C. Population of Europe and the U.S is about half of China, suppose that all Chinese were to drive cars, then it would take about half the time to rise another .8. Fortunately, there's only a limited supply of fossil fuel(perhaps not a coincidence? For all of Yahweh's evil quirks, it seems that the game was very well-designed. It's like you can only do certain things after you reach a certain time, the key I guess is to figure out how to overcome all of these "homework problems" that he gives out), so there's a limit to how much we can damage the Earth, for now.

Another thing to note about global warming is that it's not an issue like abortion, gay rights, or stem cells research. If you''re wrong, then you will pay dearly(play the game over so to speak. It won't be another 100 million years though, honestly, 10000 years is still too long already). You will not get to Type-II civilization(travelling stars and planets, aka Space Age) if you're wrong. Therefore, it's best to err on the side of caution with this issue.

That said, "I think" it's possible for the Earth to adjust herself so that we have another 100-200 years, but only for a little bit(just like how your body can heal from certain diseases, like stomach ulcers, but if it gets too extreme and your stomach bursts, then you'll need outside intervention(doctors or UFOs.) However, just because you believe that Earth is literally a living entity doesn't mean that you should keep abusing her. In fact, you would think that you'd do the opposite.

Finally, it should be noted that Al Gore created(took the initiative to be correct) the Internet. If I had to guess, someone(UFO in disguise?) must have given him or his staff the blueprint, and told him about the global warming issue also.

OP:
Haw haw haw, where is your science now

Sensible members:
That's not how the scientific method operates


Realization by OP and friends:



OP and AntiIntellectual crowd:
LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU

Repeat ad nauseam until the anti intellectual crowd quits posting and goes indawoods to hide from the gubmint boogey men.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: jrod

you have a warped view on what taxes like a carbon tax are designed for.

they're designed to put pressure on the market to innovate, by charging for carbon emissions, the government encourages the development of technologies that don't emit as much carbon.

You call it warped, I call it cynical. The reality is the carbon tax would not be used as advertised and we the consumer will foot the bill, not those who profit from exploiting the Earth's resources.

Those who profit from pumping carbon in our atmosphere are part of the oligarchy and resistant to any changes that will hurt their profits.

a reply to: JesusChristwins

The NWO has their arguments(though I don't see how getting people to go green has anything to do with the NWO). And who is paying all of these scientists? There is a far greater chance that this NASA scientist is being paid than the former.

Maybe you should try to refute the arguments instead, I mean one could just as easily accuse you of having an ulterior motive, like being too lazy to use public transportation.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Matt1951


Global warming is a religion, not a science. Everything in the old days (drought, flood, hurricanes) was blamed on an act of God. Now it is blamed on Global Warming. With absolutely no proof.
The primary purpose of the Gobal Warming religion was to act as a stalking horse for the nuclear power industry.

The only people who state that particular weather events are attributable to Global Warming are the skeptics such as yourself who write as if they are quoting the mythical climate scientist. Climatologists are very careful NOT to say such things, instead they say "The flood could be due to global warming" or "The extreme weather event is typical of what would happen if it was due to global warming". That kind of language is entirely correct since it errs on the side of caution. Climatologists are only too aware of the distortions, misquoting and cherry picking of everything they say by the skeptics and deniers.

Bull. Climatologists may be careful, but the press and any others (Al Gore) are not. I also think if the climatologists are going to say the extreme weather may be due to global warming (actually they are REQUIRED to say "climate change") they should also say it may be due to an act of God. Why should they favor one religion over another?

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: madmac5150


How does that observation hold up against a huge body of research illustrating how climate change now effects whole species of indigenous fauna and regional weather patterns?

Global warming is a religion, not a science. Everything in the old days (drought, flood, hurricanes) was blamed on an act of God. Now it is blamed on Global Warming. With absolutely no proof.
The primary purpose of the Gobal Warming religion was to act as a stalking horse for the nuclear power industry.

Ahhh conspiracy troll. You've never studied the data.

Show me your data, warmist troll.

a reply to: fripw

I am well aware of the rising carbon levels as I have stated in my posts. There is no debate in the rising CO2 and CH4 levels in our atmosphere and they are a result of human activity. I have never stated otherwise in my years at ATS.

I'm saying from a scientific point, there is not enough data points to prove or disprove GW. Furthermore I think the GW debate is just a distraction from bigger problems.

originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: jrod
There's plenty of proof. See the graphs I posted earlier.
We also can tell that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique fingerprint.
Clearing forests also releases large amounts of CO2. On top of that, plants and trees use CO2 to grow. Worldwide deforestation means we don't have as many trees to absorb the extra CO2.
This means more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, trapping more heat.

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 400 ppm. That's 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years.

Changes in the isotopic composition of carbon dioxide show that the carbon in the added carbon dioxide derives largely from plant materials, that is, from processes such as burning of biomass or fossil fuels, which are derived from fossil plant materials. Minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of oxygen show that the added carbon dioxide derives from burning of the plant materials. And concentrations of carbon dioxide in the ocean have increased along with the atmospheric concentrations, showing that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations cannot be a result of release from the oceans. All lines of evidence taken together make it unambiguous that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is human induced and is primarily a result of fossil fuel burning. (Similar reasoning can be evoked for other greenhouse gases, but for some of those, such as methane and nitrous oxide, their sources are not as clear as those of carbon dioxide.)

I could go on but I doubt you'll read this far.

I read it. It is true that warming periods and ice ages alternate. The colder spurts are caused by an apparent tug effect on the ellipse of Earth's orbit, caused by the Saturn and Jupiter. The tug of large gas planets causes the Earth to be a little farther from the sun, which allows for snow and ice year round closer to the equator. The reflection of sunlight makes it possible for glaciers to move even farther.

Based on models with human industrial contributions, the warming cycle could last for the next two thousand years, when the positions and tugs of the planets once again alters Earth's orbit enough to cause a cold period. Unfortunately, that leaves so much time for the human induction element to possibly push warming beyond its natural limits.

An exactly what are those natural limits? Climatology is an inexact science that is based on extrapolation of past data and best guess projects based on that data. If it were an exact science then they would be able to prediction weather patterns with 99% accuracy years out (e.g., on November 5, 2042 the local temperature in Flagstaff Arizona will be 28 degrees and will receive exactly 10 inches of snowfall, etc).

The climate science community needs research grant money to justify their existence and keep people employed and pad the bank accounts of the proponents and entrepreneurs of climate change scare. I can't wait for one of these people to come up with the idea of selling ice to Eskimos. The government could fill it's coffers by regulating it and taxing it!!

Predicting the trajectories of near earth objects is far more exact and reliable than climate science. That is a bigger concern to me than summer turning into fall and then winter.

By the way:

That is not to say I'm not concerned about the by-products of human civilization and our penchant for polluting our environment to the point where it becomes a noticeable problem and areal threat. That must stop but not at the cost of draconian government over-regulation and enriching a few crony corporations, politicians and their acolytes. That's something the mindless proponents of so-called climate change fail to take into account. Or is it that they stand to profit too?

Mother earth has made many species extinct in her vast history, why the hell are we trying to save her? Inevitably she will try to kill us!

originally posted by: jrod
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.

Just because you have failed to notice the subtle change does not back up your argument. You haven't been measuring it every year - others have been. I don't know where you live, but sea level rise is real. Even skeptical websites don't question the tidal gauges. 2.77 millimeters per year at Battery Park, NYC, NY.

You can even look at the NOAA Sea Level Trends page where that image comes from. From there, you can pick other places to check. 6.84 millimeters per year at Galveston Pleasure Pier, Texas; though, this is over a shorter (more recent) period than Battery Park's record. It's possible that this coincides with land subsidence, since it is rather far above the satellite-measured average sea level rise of 3.2 mm per year.

The gauges aren't lying to you. In nearly area you look that hasn't recently been covered in glaciers, there is a rise in sea levels. In areas that were covered in glaciers, land is generally still rebounding from their retreat at a pace higher than sea level rise. There area few exceptions to these, most of which also involve land rising. Remember, sea level is relative to the place it is measured - it is the average level of the ocean between high and low tides. When high tides flood areas, it starts causing problems - and it will get worse in most places. This last bit is a part people often overlook.

originally posted by: pikestaff
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.

You are greatly mistaken. Please review the records. Antarctic Maximum extent averages 18.972955 million sq km. It was somewhat above average at 19.57892 million sq km in 2013. Meanwhile, the Arctic Minimum extent averages 5.984725 million sq km, and was (at roughly the same time) below average at 5.07709 million sq km in 2013.

originally posted by: guohua
I'll bet you those Scientist that went out and got themselves Trapped in Ice had ...

Why do people keep harping on this? Please, do explain the significance of this.

originally posted by: madmac5150
I have done the research... and I refuse to accept the idea.

That's well and good - where's your paper about it? It doesn't have to be published by a journal. If you've done research, by all means share your findings.

originally posted by: np6888
In addition, someone noted that the worst case scenario is a rise of 4 Celcius, 4 Celcius is equal to 7.2 Farenheit, that is rather significant.

The +4 degrees Celsius scenario is, unfortunately, not the worst-case scenario. It's more of a realist scenario - that the emissions trends will maintain their course and that humanity will fail to curtail these trends. The worst-case scenario is a horrific 6.4 degrees Celsius.

originally posted by: jrod
I am well aware of the rising carbon levels as I have stated in my posts. There is no debate in the rising CO2 and CH4 levels in our atmosphere and they are a result of human activity. I have never stated otherwise in my years at ATS.

The retired NASA researcher that the article in the OP was about seems to believe there hasn't been a rise in CO2. This, in my opinion, is significant in discrediting his (clearly just) opinion on climate change.