Jump to content
Ed Cesnalis

Has NASA lost its way?

Recommended Posts

Read it, knew about it. As a ham radio operator I am fully aware of sunspot cycles. I also know that the Maunder Minimum is not associated with weather change any more than the eleven year general cycle of sunspots.

The Little Ice Age was, as most people know, caused by a volcanic eruption and the warmest years of that period were when the sun was still at the minimum.

Don't stop at the first thing you read just because it affirms your preconceived ideas.

 

Incorrect.  The Maunder Minimum was responsible for the 17th century mini ice age. http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

 

With the hard data on the Antarctic, on the 17 year temperature drops (while the greenies predict temps would be skyrocketing by now) and the coming mini ice age...the big question is....why are you clinging to the propaganda (which includes btw the nonsense that El Nino is somehow evidence of man-made warming)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, none of you know the answer.  At this point, you're just pounding your gums to hear your head roar.  Our children and grandchildren will find out for sure.

 

True, but in spite of not knowing for sure, many are asking US to pay trillions of dollars NOW, not our grandkids.  That's the real issue. 

 

Somebody puts a bill like that in front of me, you bet my gums are gonna pound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In California we have global warming tax.  I'm paying $3.50 / gal for regular and the Chevron station owner can no longer identify the tax amount.  Now that they have included global warming tax it is forbidden to break down the costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but in spite of not knowing for sure, many are asking US to pay trillions of dollars NOW, not our grandkids.  That's the real issue. 

 

Somebody puts a bill like that in front of me, you bet my gums are gonna pound.

This is the issue , the huge price to pay for a decrease in industrial capacity and increased cost of energy in the face of ineffective measures. The free market will bring effective low Carbon emission technologies to fruition when they are ready to be cost effective.  Already, Nuclear Energy is producing large amounts of Electricity ( the largest emission producing activity) . I know somebody is going to bring up the Fukushima Daishii power plant, except that was a Red Herring. The plant worked beautifully and was hardly damaged, in the face of the Tsunami, the batteries worked beautifully for 8 hrs. except they placed the Diesel backup power next to the water and did not waterproof the building. (they could have also placed the power plants up in the hills and and run a subterranean power cable). If people want to be sincere about carbon emissions they need to discuss why is there no large scale programs to increase electricity production through Nuclear Power.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about China and Russia?  These two industrial giants could care less about taming their carbon output...and today China puts out twice the pollution that the USA does and they have a trajectory of carbon pollution that dwarfs the rest of the world combined.

 

A typical example of twisted logic by greenies is the electric car, their panacea for auto travel.  The dirty little secret they also REFUSE to acknowledge is that when you consider most electricity comes from coal and oil plants the real carbon footprint of an electric car is double that of a fossil fuel car.  Solar and wind are less than 5% of our generating capacity despite 25 years of subsidized support.

 

Even if man-made catastrophic global warming were proven to exist...the answers the greenies offer are also incredibly dysfunctional and do not solve the problem.  For example, killing nuke plants which have a ZERO carbon footprint is absurd.  Or giving celebrities and Al Gore a pass for flying around in their 200 gph Jet-A burning palaces in the air and lighting up and heating their multiple 25,000 sq foot mansions day and night where maybe two people live, part-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at this link to a talk given by the Founder of Greenpeace on Climate Change, most interesting

 

http://technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/

 

Headline:

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently attended one of Dr. Moore's talks on this subject. I found him to be intelligent, well spoken and credible. If you want to refute his points on the science we are all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prominent Scientists Speak Out On Climate Fraud

 
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
 
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
 
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA has the best data on global warming. I don't know of any other agency using satellite data for global temperature assessment.

 

 

And you have not yet addressed the detailed graph data I posted showing that NASA has changed the reporting for the SAME data sets over the years.  

 

Having the best data in the Universe doesn't help if you don't report it accurately, or worse yet, report it differently at different times.  Why trust NASA data when two different reports relying on the same data report 100% difference in temperatures in those two reports?

 

It's not enough to have the best data, you have to be an honest and consistent broker of that data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Brietbart News-not the watch company.

 

Still have not addressed NASA's OWN GRAPHS that have different information on them.  It's easy to pick low hanging fruit like making fun of Breitbart, but you were the one who tossed out the impeccability of NASA data.  What is the explanation for the dame data sets being reported with different numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burger, it's hard to have a rational discussion of this topic when every post you make is disparaging or tosses vitriol at the other side of the debate.  

 

Nobody can be persuaded to your way of thinking (or any) when you are constantly putting people down.  Reasoned arguments win converts, just raising your voice louder wins only contempt.  I want to switch sides on this just to argue against you, because your language is so inflammatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burger, it's hard to have a rational discussion of this topic when every post you make is disparaging or tosses vitriol at the other side of the debate.  

 

Nobody can be persuaded to your way of thinking (or any) when you are constantly putting people down.  Reasoned arguments win converts, just raising your voice louder wins only contempt.  I want to switch sides on this just to argue against you, because your language is so inflammatory.

 

My comment was based on one of his...I'll remove the monkeys.  But my point still stands.  The irony being that those closed off to the rational side of the debate are the ones perpetrating the myth of catastrophic Global Warming.  Still, its a hot political topic and is likely beaten to death by now on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment was based on one of his...I'll remove the monkeys.  But my point still stands.  The irony being that those closed off to the rational side of the debate are the ones perpetrating the myth of catastrophic Global Warming.  Still, its a hot political topic and is likely beaten to death by now on the site.

I appreciate the passion, but the constant characterizations of those that don't agree as crazy cult members or irrational idiots doesn't help people to change their minds. It makes them dig in on their positions or dismiss you as an ideologue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Equating people who disagree with you to those that are universally ridiculed for their positions is a rhetorical technique, but does not substantively advance an argument.

 

It's actually a form of straw man:

 

1) These people have unpopular beliefs, and are clearly crazy.

 

2) You have unpopular beliefs.  

 

3) Therefore, you must be crazy, QED!!!

 

It would be the equivalent of saying:

 

1) Eco-terrorists are concerned for the environment, and maim and kill people.

 

2) You are concerned for the environment.

 

3) Therefore, you must maim and kill people, QED!!!

 

:thumbs_up-3334:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the passion, but the constant characterizations of those that don't agree as crazy cult members or irrational idiots doesn't help people to change their minds. It makes them dig in on their positions or dismiss you as an ideologue.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, that is what they call we skeptics - "climate deniers' and neanderthals.  In fact the libbie press makes a sport out of coming up with new diminutions for our 'side.'  It's a war, not a coffee talk.

 

Take a look at these: 

http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/09/dont-believe-in-climate-change-youre-not-a-skeptic-anymore/

http://www.teaparty.org/name-calling-of-climate-skeptics-skyrockets-99118/

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2015/01/14/climate-change-alarmists-bully-media-call-skeptics-deniers-wapo

 

I don't care if the greenies are stuck in their ignorance, I care they do not further ruin our economy with their scorch-and-burn mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure.  Does that persuade you that they are right?   ;)

 

I am a software engineer and tech business executive by training and career.  I 'believe' nothing not based on facts.  The first hint the greenies are wrong is their lack of facts...and their track record of hiding and perverting data that does not align with their not so hidden objectives. 

 

So the short answer is, no I cannot be convinced by arm-waving, ankle-biting, herd-mentality snake oil peddlers.

Share this post


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

×