Jump to content
2018 Page Fly-in Cancelled! Read more... ×
Ed Cesnalis

Has NASA lost its way?

Recommended Posts

NOAA and NASA are saying the same thing!

 

Mission statements from their websites.

 

NOAA:

Daily weather forecasts

Severe storm warnings

Climate monitoring

Fisheries management

Coastal restoration

Support marine commerce

 

NASA:

Perform flight research and technology integration to revolutionize aviation and pioneer aerospace technology

Validate space exploration concepts

Conduct airborne remote sensing and aerospace science missions

Support operations of the International Space Station - for NASA and the nation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big response from members wanting the forum cleaned up from problem posters. Who would have thought. Most people it looks like. Looks like members want a slander free environment to share, learn and have fun without fear of being attacked.

 

 

One down permanently. 2-3 on the cusp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link was left in my private mailbox by an active warmist on this thread.  I would prefer to respond publicly.

 

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/bombshell-exxon-admits-world-will-warm-by-catastrophic-7-12f-if-republicans-get-their-way/#

 

OK,#1 consider the source, every post is about 'Insane Republicans' or similar, bias to the max and not about climate science, just Republican bashing.

 

#2, Now that prosecution of skeptics has begun using Rico statutes is it surprising that some at Exon are taking a position that might help them stay out of prison?

 

#3  Is it even possible that everyone at a corp as big as Exon speaks with one voice, and that position holds over decades?  Exon will have this same debate internally that we are having.  

 

#4  Exon has no basis to say this beyond models that have only been wrong.  7C warming???  Warming has ceased yet 7C???

 

 “with no government action…average temperatures are likely to rise by 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.”

 

Government action does not reduce avg temps.  Proposed and already implemented taxation of American taxpayers in order to transfer those earnings to foreign lands, will not reduce temperatures either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link was left in my private mailbox by an active warmist on this thread.  I would prefer to respond publicly.

 

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/bombshell-exxon-admits-world-will-warm-by-catastrophic-7-12f-if-republicans-get-their-way/#

 

 

Wow, talk about paranoid delusions...did you notice the climate whiners at the UN are demanding a revocation of UN credential for those they call 'deniers?'

 

Some people don't like losing a debate....they try to get even other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CT, I sent the personal message, as you know. I obviously did not do this to be anonymous, but to try to carry on a conversation without bothering the rest of the membership here and without Burger's unnecessary comments. I apologize for having bothered you.

In parting, I will say that, yes the source is biased (as are many of yours), but the Exxon report is real and you can find it elsewhere and out whatever spin on it that you choose.

I will continue the conversation with others, but no longer here.

Burgers, you win the debate. Hope you enjoy the celebration!

Why are you giving up ? There is nothing wrong with a healthy debate. That is what we need. In any case there are many aspects to the original OP question.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

 

No apology needed, you are not bothering me.  I think public discussion should exist.

 

I know the Exxon report is real the question is why are they talking about up to 7C rise at this point?  If we look back over the last 100 years we should expect a lot of warming because of the previous little ice age and we see 0.85C rise / 100 years and currently a 19 year pause.  So to expect an increase from 0.85 over 100 years to 7 in the next 85 years we need a basis and the only basis that exists are models that have failed to predict anything correctly to date.

 

I use the same logic to question sea levels, they have risen 8" in the last 100 years and somehow I should fear that?  Based on what?  Oh yeah models.

 

There used to be only 2 competing schools of thought at Chevron but now add in the desire to remain out of prison as a 3rd reason for their position.  There is a lot of desire for silence on forums like this to add to the intimidation from RICO prosecution, discussion is a good and healthy thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to note that the North West of the UK has seen its highest ever recorded rainfall last weekend with 341mm (that about 13.5 inches for you over the pond) in 24 hours which has causes severe flooding to thousands of folk and at one point 35,000 houses were without power.

It certainly seems to be the case that severe weather events are increasing - this BBC feature gives an idea of what is going on and mentions the obvious that warmer air can hold more moisture and for the same mass of air a higher temperature equates to more energy to be dissipated - while he mentions climate change, he thankfully does not put forward reasons!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/35040336

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CT, I sent the personal message, as you know. I obviously did not do this to be anonymous, but to try to carry on a conversation without bothering the rest of the membership here and without Burger's unnecessary comments. I apologize for having bothered you.

In parting, I will say that, yes the source is biased (as are many of yours), but the Exxon report is real and you can find it elsewhere and out whatever spin on it that you choose.

I will continue the conversation with others, but no longer here.

Burgers, you win the debate. Hope you enjoy the celebration!

 

Doug,

 

There is no winning in the debate....the contention is not who is right and who is wrong...it's whether the climate is headed for a catastrophe and whether drastic action leading to suffering and a dismantling of world-wide econs is required.   It's a debate of degree, not black or white.

 

I continue to research...I try to keep my objectivity about the subject because it's a moving target.  When data comes that shows something we need to react to, then I will be right there with others to react.   But we are not seeing that...at least not yet.

 

It is pertinent to question everything and not accept anything as done, or solved.  That is the real nature of science.  Politics is not science, it's coercion...when politics gets into the middle of science this is the kind of mess you will see.  We need to get the politics out of the search and be honest about what we are seeing.

 

IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

 

There is no winning in the debate....the contention is not who is right and who is wrong...it's whether the climate is headed for a catastrophe and whether drastic action leading to suffering and a dismantling of world-wide econs is required.   It's a debate of degree, not black or white.

 

I continue to research...I try to keep my objectivity about the subject because it's a moving target.  When data comes that shows something we need to react to, then I will be right there with others to react.   But we are not seeing that...at least not yet.

 

It is pertinent to question everything and not accept anything as done, or solved.  That is the real nature of science.  Politics is not science, it's coercion...when politics gets into the middle of science this is the kind of mess you will see.  We need to get the politics out of the search and be honest about what we are seeing.

 

IMHO.

You are right, it is a mater of degree and degrees (pun intended). And looking at the big picture. What is worth doing and what is NOT worth doing , because it is ineffective, or too expensive given the expected results.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

 

There is no winning in the debate....the contention is not who is right and who is wrong...it's whether the climate is headed for a catastrophe and whether drastic action leading to suffering and a dismantling of world-wide econs is required.   It's a debate of degree, not black or white.

 

I continue to research...I try to keep my objectivity about the subject because it's a moving target.  When data comes that shows something we need to react to, then I will be right there with others to react.   But we are not seeing that...at least not yet.

 

It is pertinent to question everything and not accept anything as done, or solved.  That is the real nature of science.  Politics is not science, it's coercion...when politics gets into the middle of science this is the kind of mess you will see.  We need to get the politics out of the search and be honest about what we are seeing.

 

IMHO.

 

That's a worthwhile statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kerry admits at COP-21 that US emissions cuts accomplish nothing for climate

 

It won't work but do it anyway!  Insane honesty

 

 

 

That is just pitiful ! But he is making the point I have been arguing all along. Again Perspective is what is needed.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do what anyway?  The American middle class is being destroyed down 10% in a decade.  There are 94 million working aged adults out of the workforce...historic highs.  The real jobless rate is well North of 18%.  There is record poverty - 55 million below poverty line.  And  automation is about tol gut another 10% of the workforce over the next five years. 

 

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO TINKER and add expense to the economy.  The fed govt is already WAY too large and wasteful.

 

We need to cut the size of government by half (and that means stop subsidies for both oil and green tech), remove blocks to building newgen nuke plants, totally take down the public school system and make it voucher based so the teachers unions are force to compete for students, denut the EPA and fire the radicals that work there, and get real about China and it's currency attacks.

 

If we continue down the current road, let alone add to the problem we simply hurry the final destruction of the country and what's left of the economy and the dying middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate conf. ended in a farting sound once again.  Most pollution comes from China and India and they won't sign on, and all of it is voluntary anyway.   Like Kyoto nothing will change and the US congress will not sign-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China and India are not listed among the Annex one developed nations within the UN climate regime. They are hiding behind the UN’s principle of “differentiated responsibilities” permitting them to avoid hard commitments and defer any peaking or reduction of their greenhouse gas emissions until fuzzy dates in the future. China now accounts for 24% of global emissions and India 6.4 %. Together they exceed the combined emissions of the U.S., 15.5%, and the E.U.’s 10.8%. - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/11/cop-21-extra-innings-china-and-india-waiting-for-obama-to-fold/#sthash.6pY0Gi0U.dpuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China and India have signed on to COP-21 in Paris.

 
India Can Triple CO2 Emissions Under New Climate Commitment
OCTOBER 6, 2015
 
President Obama received another commitment from a developing country last week for the United Nations climate conference in Paris in December. This time it is from the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world—India. However, as is the case with China’s commitment[1], India will still emit more and more carbon dioxide through 2030.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris climate agreement is ‘legally binding’ but not to reduce emissions. The 'legally binding' components simply requires countries to SET A TARGET FOR EMISSIONS.  As I said, China, India, Japan and the USA will not change anything....so once again the entire exercise is one of futility.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/paris-climate-agreement-will-be-legally-binding-but-wont-lock-countries-into-emissions-targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China and India have signed on to COP-21 in Paris.

LOL, what are the sanctions if they do not comply ? Don't be naive, unless it is a sarcastic statement.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris climate agreement is ‘legally binding’ but not to reduce emissions. The 'legally binding' components simply requires countries to SET A TARGET FOR EMISSIONS.  As I said, China, India, Japan and the USA will not change anything....so once again the entire exercise is one of futility.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/paris-climate-agreement-will-be-legally-binding-but-wont-lock-countries-into-emissions-targets

Correct !, I do not know how the State Department can proclaim it a "great success" , with a straight face !

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you disagree with what I posted? Others said India and China haven't, or won't sign on to an agreement. They did.

Your comment is just sarcasm, and doesn't apply to the point being made. You have to read more than the most recent comment if you want to understand the conversation.

 

China and India are able to 'sign on' for the same reason Obama is, the agreement is non-binding and permits almost 190 countries to set their own targets.  The agreement is meaningless and therefore needs no senate approval and therefore Obama can sign it.  China and India can sign even if India's plan calls for 300% increase in emissions.

 

Technically you are right but the criticisms that it has no meaning are right as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China and India are able to 'sign on' for the same reason Obama is, the agreement is non-binding and permits almost 190 countries to set their own targets.  The agreement is meaningless and therefore needs no senate approval and therefore Obama can sign it.  China and India can sign even if India's plan calls for 300% increase in emissions.

 

Technically you are right but the criticisms that it has no meaning are right as well.

Precisely, it would be naive to think that China and India are going to decrease emissions because they signed this document. Especially given the fact that there are no sanctions. There are billions of people, in this world, that do not have electricity or/and potable water. Guess which is a priority, CO2 emissions ?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not addressing compliance, just the comment that China and India have not signed on to a climate agreement. That was my focus, not any of the stuff you guys are adding on.

 

It is a fact - China and India are signatories to COP-21.

That's it. That's my point. It can no longer be said that they have not signed a climate agreement!

OK, our point is that the fact that they are signatories to the document, means nothing (in terms of carbon emissions) . Bottom line.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×