Has NASA lost its way?

[Ed Cesnalis]

Update: Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’

 

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/20/update-leader-of-effort-to-prosecute-skeptics-under-rico-paid-himself-his-wife-1-5-million-from-govt-climate-grants-for-part-time-work/#ixzz3vLkWlVbp

[IrishAl]

To Doug, CT, Andy and others:

 

This debate has been very interesting, not least because it's been a 'real' debate. 

 

You guys have taken the gloves off and gone toe to toe with each other, and I respect your courage for standing up for your views without letting things descend into personal offence and hurt feelings.      

 

Some of the statements made have really surprised me, particularly Andy's claim that NASA has revised earlier temperature figures downwards by several degrees in order to 'create' a recent steep rise in global temperature.  

 

I think a large part of the debate hinges on that claim, and, so far, that claim has not been refuted.

 

Doug, you clearly value methodical research, as you state yourself:

 

If you can't even research a magazine submission, and don't know how to vet sources for credibility, I don't think you can even begin to think you can handle, or even contemplate, what real science entails. 

 

On that basis, is there any evidence to refute Andy's claim that NASA has massaged the figures to artificially demonstrate a recent sharp rise in global temeratures?

[Ed Cesnalis]

Al, you are focused on one of several key points:

• NASA and others adjust data in one direction only  (see climategate)
• Satellite data is ignored in favor of ground stations
• Most of the planet lacks ground stations so data must be fabricated.
• Ground stations are located at urban heat islands
• Most data are from proxies - tree rings and even glacier melt can be indicators of wet vs dry not just cold vs warm.
• The 19 year current pause in warming
• The models that this 'science' is based on have always and only been wrong to date.
• The geologic record shows that CO2 follows warming it doesn't drive it.
• Taxation cannot alter the climate
• Cap and Trade - wealth redistribution cannot alter the climate
• Capping rise at 2*c - Man cannot dictate the globe's temperature.
• Catastrophic effects of global warming are already here - oceans have risen 8" in 100 years and temps have risen 1.53°F (0.85ºC)

Personally I have not seen any on that list adequately refuted here or anywhere.

 

You are right Al this has not been a debate.  Much like the larger 'debate' here you have the skeptics arguing logic and the warmers argue that the skeptics should be silenced.  The RICO prosecutions have begun, jail is next for our side if the warmists prevail, and higher taxes and life without energy for all.

 

The one point the warmists make here is that the skeptics don't know science and should shut up.  I suggest silencing the opposing view is not science.

[Anticept]

CT:

 

The NASA article that was linked was very interesting, just wish it wasn't behind a paywall so I could read all of that letter.

 

As for the rest: I'm not arguing that people should be silenced, but rather that people need to post reputable sources to verify claims. You just made a huge list, I'd like to see sources. Otherwise, it's no better than tin foil hatting and there's enough of that already in the world making it hard to find good quality information...

[IrishAl]

If NASA can't be considered a reputable source, who can?

[FlyingMonkey]

If NASA can't be considered a reputable source, who can?

 

Excellent question.  On this topic, I don't know of any sources whose data has not legitimately been called into question.  Which makes the truth almost impossible to know and is a tragedy for science and humanity.  

[Anticept]

I have no issue with sources being called into question, but what I don't want to see is sources coming from "SoccerMomsRUs" which also talk about purging toxins with some crazy herbal remedy with no formal research done about it.

 

Also, peer review and experimental reproducibility is important.

[Doug G.]

CT:

 

The NASA article that was linked was very interesting, just wish it wasn't behind a paywall so I could read all of that letter.

 

As for the rest: I'm not arguing that people should be silenced, but rather that people need to post reputable sources to verify claims. You just made a huge list, I'd like to see sources. Otherwise, it's no better than tin foil hatting and there's enough of that already in the world making it hard to find good quality information...

 

This thread started out with something to do with Muslims and then an article about a project some congress person got for NASA even when they didn't want it. (It happens all the time. Especially with the military. No, it is not good, but it certainly is not the fault of NASA.)

 

Then we went on to global warming, conspiracy theories, clips from terrible secondary or tertiary sources, the climate conference, China's lack of participation in past agreements and their role in pollution (although it evidently has nothing to do with global warming, so why the concern?) and I think thrown in there somewhere is that CO is not a greenhouse gas (implying it has no effect), and on and on. And I think the president and Donald Trump came in there somewhere, didn't they?  Like I stated earlier - Whack-a-mole.

 

​If the purpose of discussion is to bring in anything anyone ever said from any source that supports your position, and to constantly change the subject, I don't agree with the methodology and won't participate. I tried to take this into a more private and hopefully productive direction, but found that there was no receptivity to that idea and my private post was put here in an attempt to claim it was some sort of deviousness.

 

​Some of the rest of you might be getting something from this discussion, but my take is that although I am trying to take it seriously there is no way to have a debate on forty different subjects at the same time. Plus it is not only one person but a few whom, I suspect, don't necessarily agree with each other.

Here are the things I believe to be true -

​ -Global warming is real and largely caused by human activity.

 -China is the worst polluter and has been, until this agreement seen as a developing nation (Kyoto) and was exempted from participation (the US is a different story). China has put in place an experiment with Cap-and-Trade and is genuinely concerned with global warming/pollution - will it work? I don't know, but I am glad they are making the attempt.

​ -Oil is on its way out, in the same way coal had its heyday, oil has reached its zenith. (Yes, oil will still be used, just as coal is, but it will become a secondary source.) Some of my income is directly from oil and I live in a state which in a few short years has become the second largest oil producing state so I follow this stuff; even our local papers run oil stories on a regular basis.

​ -If we don't develop alternative energy sources, and especially storage technology, we will be surpassed by those who do - the renewable energy market and energy economy will eventually be a huge industry. If the economics of this is a problem for you, you need to look closer at the opportunities.

 -Yes, we should all drive Tesla's (or something similar) although the technology needs to be developed further since they don't do particularly well at -3 degrees - our current temperature. (Were you aware there is an FIA electric formula racing series?)

​

I also believe this change is inevitable and those who rail against it are tilting at windmills - almost literally.

 

Now I think I'll go read something about airplanes and flying. Someone else can take up the fight here if you so choose.

[IrishAl]

Doug, you need to take a good hard look at yourself.

 

You state that others are unreasonable in their approach to this subject,("If you can't even research a magazine submission, and don't know how to vet sources for credibility, I don't think you can even begin to think you can handle, or even contemplate, what real science entails." )  but you are shot down by your own words in that you fail to respond to Andy's rebuttal of your claim.

 

Despite your belief that you're scientific in your approach, your practice the opposite in that you make threats and then rescind on them - (I'm leaving this debate) and you regularly resort to scorn - (whack-a-mole)

 

And when I ask you to respond to Andy's claim regarding NASA you ignore the question and instead give a long-winded, dismissive statement that just sweeps every other argument off the table with the consescending attitude of 'you're all idiots anyway and this discussion is absurd'.

 

The anti-warming guys have presented sound and reasoned arguments to back up thier position.

 

But the argument that most closely fits the description of 'whack-a-mole' comes from you, my friend.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I have no issue with sources being called into question, but what I don't want to see is sources coming from "SoccerMomsRUs" which also talk about purging toxins with some crazy herbal remedy with no formal research done about it.

 

Also, peer review and experimental reproducibility is important.

 

Corey.

 

Focusing on sources and peer review given the subject matter is a technique that blocks opposing views.  There is no level playing field in that most cases peer's review and get published their support for one side.  We saw just above how many reports on the NASA/Goddard scientists statements were reported in questionable sources yet the facts reported were accurate.  Remember how the Lewinsky story was broke by the Enquirer?  Some scandals are maintained by the MSM and other not credible sources are sometimes the only place to find the Paul Harvey.

 

You hit on a really big point with your final statement.  MMGW is based entirely on predictive computer models, there is no evidence or relevant experiment to reproduce.

 

It is disputed by the MSM of course but the contention remains that the CRU destroyed original adjusted data and even the predictive results cannot  be replicated. 

 

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

 

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

 

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

 

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/11/29/climategate-fallout-continues-cru-admits-original-data-deleted/

 

When you consider that there is an open question whether to believe the main stream it becomes helpful to use common sense.  Using your common sense how do you reconcile these 2 main stream positions?

1. Catastrophic damage from MMGW is already occurring
2. In the last 100 years temps have risen 0.85*C and sea levels have risen 8"

Do you really believe that raising your taxes and removing your access to energy will change the global temp?  Isn't it at the minimum a good enough question to be able to ask without ridicule?

[Ed Cesnalis]

CT:

 

The NASA article that was linked was very interesting, just wish it wasn't behind a paywall so I could read all of that letter.

 

As for the rest: I'm not arguing that people should be silenced, but rather that people need to post reputable sources to verify claims. You just made a huge list, I'd like to see sources. Otherwise, it's no better than tin foil hatting and there's enough of that already in the world making it hard to find good quality information...

 

Corey,

 

Since it is a big list, take your pick, where should we start?

[Ed Cesnalis]

This thread started out with something to do with Muslims and then ...

 

Al did a nice job in responding so I will limit to your opening point.  'Something to do with Muslims' is the primary point I was making when starting this thread.  Earlier NASA's way was easy to see, the mandate was included in the title 'National Space and Aeronautic Administration' 

 

The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

 

I suggest that making Muslims feel good as a top NASA priority was when NASA lost its way and the following examples and results are merely the result of this change in mandate.

[Doug G.]

Al, I responded to a post you directed to me. Evidently you didn't want me to respond because you are concerned about my saying I was not going to participate?

 

If whack-a-mole is upsetting to you, I am fine if you choose to use constantly moving target, or inability to stick to one subject as a substitute. Incidentally, changing the subject to my choice of words and my self examination (a personal attack?) is also off the subject.

 

I suppose this post also goes against my attempt to separate myself from this. But then, if you don't want me to respond quit talking to me.

 

As far as the points made and your assessment of them, what is your take on the veracity of the evidence and sources presented?

 

The original post cited a statement given in an interview with Al Jazeera five years ago. Mr. Bolden has also said the long term goal is to put a person on Mars and is concerned about congressional budget cuts. But the original post goes back to a statement given to an Arabic tv network that spoke about affirming the very real Arabic contributions to math and science. (I suspect we all use Arabic numbers.) I have seen no particular evidence of great effort or expense being made in that direction, so, as far as I am concerned, it is a sound bite.

 

Yes, I have studied a lot of things, done a lot of things, and I am passionate about some things. If being strongly assertive is seen as arrogant, I am sorry you feel that way. I suspect if we actually knew each other you wouldn't have that sense.

[Ed Cesnalis]

...  I have seen no particular evidence of great effort or expense being made in that direction, so, as far as I am concerned, it is a sound bite...

 

The fact that we now rely on Russia to access space serves as evidence of 'change' to me.

 

[IrishAl]

Hi Doug.

I appreciate your reply.

I'm not a bit upset - I've really enjoyed the debate. I'm simply pointing out that demanding good practice from others while not producing it yourself doesn't help your argument.

 

 

 

As far as the points made and your assessment of them, what is your take on the veracity of the evidence and sources presented?

 

That's a good question.  I'm surprised by the strength of the arguments presented that rebut global warming - there are lots of them and the quotes come from a broad range of sound sources.  

 

For me, Andy's claim that NASA altered the figures to show recent rapid warming is a central issue - if that stands, then everything NASA says on the subject must be considered invalid.

 

Yes, I have studied a lot of things, done a lot of things, and I am passionate about some things. If being strongly assertive is seen as arrogant, I am sorry you feel that way. I suspect if we actually knew each other you wouldn't have that sense.

 

I don't mind anyone being strongly assertive - that's not an issue I raised.  

But I do appreciate the kind sentiment expressed - thanks.

[Anticept]

I'll respond when I have a little more time, but honestly, I'd like to see sources for everything.

 

I can comment on this one though:

• Ground stations are located at urban heat islands

Even if it were 10 degrees hotter than surrounding areas, wouldn't seeing 60 degrees one year average, then 61, 62, 63, 64, 65.... etc lead to suspicion of a warming indication? I say suspicion because obviously, there will be many other factors, especially with technological advancement, but if you're seeing the ground stations registering roughly the same trend in temperature as the stations located away from human activity, then the urbanization environment is largely irrelevant.

 

• The geologic record shows that CO2 follows warming it doesn't drive it.

I would love to see information on this one, it piques my interest. Though, it wouldn't surprise me, there are a lot of sources of trapped CO2 that are released following a warming event. Still, to say that "this is how it has always happened" is faulty reasoning; it's helpful to gaze into history and see what happens following a warming event, but it isn't valid proof to say that CO2 isn't a driving factor, just that it hasn't occurred before.

 

• Most of the planet lacks ground stations so data must be fabricated.

True, but at what point is this satisfied? Interpolation is present everywhere in society, from economics to engineering to science. If the data used for interpolation is good, and the method used for interpolation is also good, then the results will have a strong probability to be good as well. I feel that the logic behind this argument is being misapplied; instead, the focus should be on verifying the data, and verifying the methods.

 

• The 19 year current pause in warming

El Nino was really strong in the late 90's. So, being "paused" probably isn't a good thing, it should have been cooling.

 

As for climategate: this whole thing is a s**tshow and I don't care for it. All I see in it is mud-slinging based on a bunch of emails and cherrypicking; the same kind of crap I see every time there's a racial or political controversy. I'd rather focus on individual points than smearing a whole community.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Corey,

 

The chart below demonstrates pretty clearly that historically Temperature drives CO2.

 

 

You may not care for climategate but personally I find Mann's program to 'hide the decline' (alter data to show warming) to be pretty suspicious.

 

Today the same thing is happening again.  How is it that NOAA can refuse congressional subpoenas seeking to reveal why data is again changed?  NOAA's response is that they refuse in order to protect the scientist's integrity.  Why does it take a Judicial Watch lawsuit to reveal how sausage science is made, with taxpayer dollars?

 

Your argument on the heat islands is typical but irrelevant.  Notice how you were off by 2 orders of magnitude to make your point.  If warming currently existed (according to the more reliable satellite data it doesn't) then your array should change from  '61, 62, 63, 64, 65....'  to '61, 61.0153, 61.0306, 61.0459, 61.0612....'.  Your example picked up 260+ years of warming in 4 years. In order to agree with the more reliable satellite data, if your array represented the last 19 years it would look like '61, 61, 61, 61, 61, ....'

 

Thermometers were only invented 300 years ago, the data we have to work with is limited to the point of being useless.  When a ground station becomes an urban heat island, or when it becomes a warmer heat island due to additional development the result is 'proof' that last year warmed by 1/10*F. Whatever happened to the margin of error?  What does it take to even sense 1/10*F?  The result is meaningless and to get there they had to set aside the reliable satellite data in favor of the problematic surface readings?

 

Satellite data is currently being ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative, we'll see this to be true when Judicial Watch gets the Emails, exactly like climategate.  NOAA's refusal to comply with the legal congressional subpoena is likely proof enough.

 

Notice how our federal checks and balances no longer function and it takes a private party to get at truth?  Why is that?

[Anticept]

It was only an example to illustrate the logical flow, I wasn't using actual data. Anyways I'm getting sucked into an argument that I'm really not interested in debating, because again, I am not qualified. If there is widespread fraud going on, it will be shaken out by passionate people such as yourself.

 

Another post brought up, the site needs less politics and more focus on flying. These discussions are even putting me off as it's just the wrong venue for it. Forgive me, but I must beg for excusal on this topic any longer, good luck!

[Ed Cesnalis]

NASA explains 20 year pause by blaming satellite data.  Huge effort but they are silent on the fact that the satellite data is independently verified by weather balloons. 

 

NASA to release these findings in a video in coming days.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I think this if funny but I do question whether or not NASA scientist should market their private enterprises as 'Designed by a NASA scientist'?

 

I live at 8,000' elevation so I experience mild cold exposure all the time and have to question the marketing claims.

 

Any opinions on this devise as well as NASA letting its name be used in marketing it?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR7EAXfg4P8

 

https://www.coldshouldervest.com/

[IrishAl]

 

If this video had been shown on Monty Python's Flying Circus thirty years ago, we'd all have fallen about laughing!

[Doug G.]

Most of us could just turn the heat down and accomplish the same thing. It isn't rocket science.????

[FlyingMonkey]

Most of us could just turn the heat down and accomplish the same thing. It isn't rocket science.

 

Think of all the energy wasted and the carbon it would generate to get your AC cool enough to make you burn calories in the summer.

[Doug G.]

In the summer there are more things to do outside. -20 tends to limit them.

[FlyingMonkey]

In the summer there are more things to do outside. -20 tends to limit them.

 

But if you are outside in the heat, you are not burning calories from cold!