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

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


We are messing up our own Eco-system. The one that makes man's life possible on this planet. Everything together makes the mess, you can't start itemizing things. Reduce any single problem and it gets better. The easiest and surest way to fix this is to do mass genocide. I know my family and I will not be in that group that is selected to survive. I'd rather have it that some powerful group didn't initiate this action myself.

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

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

We are messing up our own Eco-system. The one that makes man's life possible on this planet. Everything together makes the mess, you can't start itemizing things. Reduce any single problem and it gets better. The easiest and surest way to fix this is to do mass genocide. I know my family and I will not be in that group that is selected to survive. I'd rather have it that some powerful group didn't initiate this action myself.

I don't disagree that we are messing up the ecology...

But the entire climate of a PLANET??? Not buying it, sorry.

When there is irrefutable evidence, that all scientific bodies are in agreement with, then I will believe it. Think water... we know H2O makes up water, because of irrefutable physical evidence and experimentation. When we have that level of evidence, you've got my vote.

Until then, I will keep recycling, using organic pesticides and herbicides, plant more trees and try to do my part to keep my footprint to a minimum.

~Namaste

Man made climate change is garbage it is junk science to push crony capitalism from media to green iniative that has funneled billions if not trillions in to CORPORATIONS.,

Hell go to any solar,wind website and look how much and many subsidies there are paid for by your tax dollars going straight in to corporate accounts.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Yes we are that stupid lol. blaming the woes of the planet on one type of atom. What about Trump's yacht ( example of extravagance and lavishness and pure awesome capital drool)? What about Gore's poolhouse? What about the humanitarian bombing and the nuke testing? What about the all the energy input for "going green" ? Fk it you don't need a new overengineered green product to show you how to not be an ass to the planet. Use your heads people. A few freakin pop cans here and there means NOTHING as long as this military industrial corporate whore complex bombs, poisons, kills, and indiscriminately. Never mind racism, specieism is the new black/gay.

Now here's Tom with the weather

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

I don't agree with the carbon tax at all, that is a capitalistic ploy. It costs nothing to reduce our destruction of this planet. It would save almost every person money to buy only what we need. Only those who profit on us would suffer. A tax would slow buying, that's their plan. That accomplishes what we cannot accomplish ourselves. We cannot control our wants ourselves and we waste a considerable amount of everything. Our capitalistic conditioning has gone way overboard. Just stop wasteful consuming and global warming goes away. Don't buy anything that won't last twenty years or more. Are you a person who makes your money off of sales? If you are than I suspect you won't agree with me.

uhm want to learn something scary?
global warming is not caused by CO2... well not fully...
its got worse the last 30 years sure...
but about 20-30 years ago our solar system started to pass into a dense gassy dusty cloud
this dusty gassy cloud "warms" the planet and makes the sun burn stronger/brighter
should take about 1000 years for us to pass through fully

we will get our arctic back...
in 3022 ad
about 1000 years after we lose it.....

Thank God. The immensely over exaggerated global warming claims is just a capitalistic leech.

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

 

There are no major scientific bodies that doubt the. existence of AWG.... It is proven beyond reasonable doubt and yes all those scientitists could be wrong. But for the time being I will trust them. It is science that allows me to sit here tapping in front of a laptop. Science has bought us so much, why should I not heed the warnings of science..

I dont get why peeps get so upset about this. If we reduce CO2 levels and nothing happens so what they planet is cleaner...... Its not a risk worth taking...

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

I'd like to see the "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof about man-made global warming.

I have never seen any absolute evidence or the subject would no longer be debated. In fact, the "proof" by some universities and groups was proven to be doctored if I remember correctly... so I hope your proof is better than that.

~Namaste

WRONG. YOu don't remember at all! There was never ever any evidence of doctored proof. That was what the skeptics claimed and other skeptics regurgitated and re-posted as if "the truth". The so called doctoring was a frank and open discussion in email form about how to counter the lies presented by the skeptics......ironically enough. Needles to say if the skeptics resort to dirty tactics then a frank discussion will result in the contemplation of similar tactics.

There is plenty of evidence you either choose to ignore or not, your choice, to be informed or ignorant. If you are a US citizen it is highly likely you have been brainwashed by the lies about GW that your government fed you. Now get this : the US government ADMITTED to distorting the evidence about global warming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and still the skeptics regurtitated the lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jaw dropping stuff.

Originally posted by neo96
Man made climate change is garbage it is junk science to push crony capitalism from media to green iniative that has funneled billions if not trillions in to CORPORATIONS.,

Hell go to any solar,wind website and look how much and many subsidies there are paid for by your tax dollars going straight in to corporate accounts.

edit on 11-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

WOW, You do realise.....well obviously not! that those so called corporations are funding the anti GW agenda precisely because they stand to gain by governments doing nothing. Wake up ! you are doing exactly what they want by denying man made GW.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

 

I dont get why peeps get so upset about this. If we reduce CO2 levels and nothing happens so what they planet is cleaner...... Its not a risk worth taking...

This is about Cap and Trade, tried in Spain where it failed and is contributing to the near collapse of Spains economy.

You see the problem is that people, like in your case have not thought it through or even considered the evidence.

Follow the money.

Cap and Trade passes and Al Gore makes an estimated two billion overnight. The Chicago Carbon Exchange, all Obama cronies, way more than that. Would you lie for billions or favors from those getting billions?

Then you have the scientists who have sold out. We know from the emails between the frauds who started this that they falsified data to support their theory due to the real data not supporting it. They even talked about how they took the data from trees in one place and attributed them to another place.

The results of what you suggest are horrendous.

First the cost of energy goes through the roof. We are talking your heat and light bills going up by massive amounts overnight. The elderly dieing because they can't afford to air condition in the summer or heat in the winter.

Worldwide, the cost of food is tied directly to energy. Food costs would skyrocket and those in poor areas of the world would die. No fear mongering here, just facts, people would starve in large numbers. Much of the world lives on under $2 a day. Imagine if transporting a pound of rice doubled or tripled. The amount of food available would be reduced greatly.

The impact of this could be catastrophic and yet the save the world crowd could care less. Explain that? To lazy to know their topic and just looking for attention and wanting to look cool and be in the in crowd You bring these facts up and they generally leave the conversation.

You are aware the warming stopped a decade ago right? Climate change does happen and has happened all throughout the worlds history. That we can and should deal with, but this crap about Cap and Trade and shutting the energy production down is lunacy. Millions could die from a lie propagated to attract votes and make insane amounts of money.

The phony scientists are after research grants. They don't get the grants, they have to move on to real work.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

 

There are no major scientific bodies that doubt the. existence of AWG.... It is proven beyond reasonable doubt and yes all those scientitists could be wrong. But for the time being I will trust them. It is science that allows me to sit here tapping in front of a laptop. Science has bought us so much, why should I not heed the warnings of science..

I dont get why peeps get so upset about this. If we reduce CO2 levels and nothing happens so what they planet is cleaner...... Its not a risk worth taking...

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

I'd like to see the "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof about man-made global warming.

I have never seen any absolute evidence or the subject would no longer be debated. In fact, the "proof" by some universities and groups was proven to be doctored if I remember correctly... so I hope your proof is better than that.

~Namaste

WRONG. YOu don't remember at all! There was never ever any evidence of doctored proof. That was what the skeptics claimed and other skeptics regurgitated and re-posted as if "the truth". The so called doctoring was a frank and open discussion in email form about how to counter the lies presented by the skeptics......ironically enough. Needles to say if the skeptics resort to dirty tactics then a frank discussion will result in the contemplation of similar tactics.

There is plenty of evidence you either choose to ignore or not, your choice, to be informed or ignorant. If you are a US citizen it is highly likely you have been brainwashed by the lies about GW that your government fed you. Now get this : the US government ADMITTED to distorting the evidence about global warming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and still the skeptics regurtitated the lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jaw dropping stuff.

Riiiight...

So 31,000 scientists from all over the world, who risk their professional reputations and possibly their careers, all signed a petition because us Americans are brainwashed.

Speaking of choosing to ignore evidence...

www.oism.org...

Read some of it and you'll see for yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about.

How about some facts, shall we?

The MOST reliable form of temperature change measurement is through the lower troposphere, which we have been measuring with very precise instruments for a number of years. (25 or so I believe) Since those measurements began, there has been NO NOTICEABLE change in temperature. Changes in the troposphere are the best indicator for global temperature changes because ground-based measuring devices are easily corrupted by localized heating, especially the kind seen in cities, which is where a majority of the ground stations are based. There are also too many places where ground-based measuring can't be done due to locality, which is why measurements from the troposphere are more accurate.

What about the climatic optimum? Oh, I'm sure you won't hear anything about that, because it's the nail in the coffin for this debate... also, how is it that from 800-1200 AD, during the age of the Vikings, the Earth's temperatures were warmer than any other time recorded by humans? Had it not been for those warmer temps, the Vikings would not have been able to settle in Greenland.

Last but not least, what about the failed Kyoto Protocol, which would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years, only to reduce temperatures by .14 degrees??? Who is the winner there... if you still can't figure it out, it's the CORPORATIONS who stand to gain the most from these ridiculous laws and taxes, not you or I. In the end, they will be richer, the planet will be hotter, and we'll be wondering why everything we did changed nothing.

You make some bold claims but provide not a single shred of proof. Both you and the previous poster I replied to present no facts, no evidence, no links to your claims, just here-say.

Please, deny ignorance and see the facts I'm presenting. I've already debunked one of the claims that no major scientific bodies discount man made global warming...Instead of claiming lies by skeptics, consider that if it were just a lie, why did the head of the lying institution resign? Just because of skeptics?

Forget that there are thousands of variables that go into a climate model today to predict LOCAL weather, and WE STILL CAN'T FORECAST IT CORRECTLY!!! But you have the arrogance to sit here and claim that we can predict the climate change across the whole planet? Our tools are still archaic in that regard, but I suppose you'll keep feeding the Jolly "Green" Giants your hard earned tax dollars.

~Namaste

reply to post by Blaine91555


Well said, star for you!

~Namaste

reply to post by Blaine91555


I did a little scratching around and this is what I found....

NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record01.19.12 The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

www.nasa.gov...

"what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account. Using simple linear regression (ordinary least squares) we can detect and measure a clear trend over the 42-year period between 1970 and 2011, indicating an average temperature increase of 0.151°C per decade. This trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level, the standard test which means the probability that there is no warming trend at all in the data is less than 5 per cent. "
www2.lse.ac.uk...

The daily mail recently printed an article saying data from East Anglia University & the Met office said there's been no warming ... but on the East Anglia uni web page it's showing warming ..... and no mention of this devestating blow on the Met's web site either .......hmmmm

www.cru.uea.ac.uk...

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


if cyanobacteria killed almost every living thing on Earth due to them releasing increasing oxygen in the atmosphere , triggering a massive ice age during the Paleoproterozoic era, (an event known as the oxygen catastrophe)... then why is is so hard to imagine that Human's could cause climate change ?

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


I'll agree that H2O makes up the skeleton of water. But if H2O couldn't bind with things there would not be life on this planet even though it was plentiful.

reply to post by AliceBlackman


Interesting post....star.

Though I fear that the evidence is misrepresented.

I did a little scratching around and this is what I found.... NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record01.19.12 The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. www.nasa.gov...

This is your most damning evidence, yet IMHO, it is deceptive given the time frame.

In order for us to make an educated decision as to whether Anthropogenic caused Climate Change (Note that there has been a shift over the last few years to go from AGW to ACC) is an accurate label for the apparently wild fluctuations in weather that has been experienced over the last four decades (Yes four ....the 70's were witness to some really freak weather events - storms, floods, drought. The 80's saw worldwide drought and subsequent famine - a nightmare you will find that most of the people who lived through...will not talk about....It really was that horrific...and the two decades since - I'm sure that you all are up to speed on that) we need to look back far more than two hundred years.

As far as I'm concerned.....if someone wants to prove that this rise has only been seen since the start of the industrial revolution.....then they should provide data for several thousand years (Ice cores). This generally doesn't happen as there was a trough in the global mean temperature around 1715CE and it - while not debunking ACC - it makes people question the graph, as it shows a trend for mean temperatures to rise and fall like a wave when viewed on a larger scale.

Realistically....graphs displaying climate data, should be be plotted using hundreds/thousands of years as the resolution/units. We are looking at a system that is complex and many factors have an influence on the mean global temperature. Most notably, the Sun.

"what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account. Using simple linear regression (ordinary least squares) we can detect and measure a clear trend over the 42-year period between 1970 and 2011, indicating an average temperature increase of 0.151°C per decade. This trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level, the standard test which means the probability that there is no warming trend at all in the data is less than 5 per cent. "

Again. Resolution.

If the mean temp yesterday was 30C and today its 25C. We don't say that this is evidence that ACC is proven false.....It is merely data taken on a time frame that is too small.

The same goes for trying to prove that carbon is solely responsible for raising the Earth's mean temperature. We need a larger time frame of accurate data, but, unfortunately, this simply does not exist as the amount of data we can extract from Ice-cores is limited.

Even if we do correlate what data we have.....The people publishing such data.....do not seem look at the possibility that the excess carbon could be the result of something else.

Its what happens when you tell a scientist to prove something with a grant......they will ignore all other scenarios and only focus on one aspect you have asked them to prove......there is a whole political side to science that the general public don't see. Morals go out the door because the scientist knows that if he/she doesn't do as asked......the grant money will go to someone willing to do it.

The data can't be fudged to prove a point.....either all of the data gets taken to the table or none of it does....To do otherwise just ruins credibility and gives corporations (oil, etc...) loop-hole arguments to fool the stupid.

The daily mail recently printed an article saying data from East Anglia University & the Met office said there's been no warming ... but on the East Anglia uni web page it's showing warming ..... and no mention of this devestating blow on the Met's web site either .......hmmmm

I'm staying away from this as I know little of what has happened in the UK W.R.T. AGW/ACC.

I see some people are not getting the point of the OP. The point is not weather or not there is a global warming trend. That is proven. There is. But is it because of us? I sincerely doubt that. Op is arguing that man made GW is not a fact. Earth goes through changes all the time, only on a much greater scale of time...difficult to notice for humans. There have been drastic changes in temperature in whole of the earth's history. It is as normal cycle as the cycle of seasons, which we humans notice much easier.


Is there a global warming effect. Sure. Is it man induced? Most likely, it is a natural event. For us humans, it is an event...for earth...it could simply be a "vacation" time

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.

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.