calfoxwc Posted June 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 "sote" ? actually, don't know what happened... fixed the links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 2 hours ago, calfoxwc said: "sote" ? actually, don't know what happened... fixed the links. u linked an editorial from 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 43 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the reasoning. all the info is old and long debunked/refuted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 baloney. The facts are still facts, regardless of how long ago they became known as facts. The truth doesn't get recycled every freaking year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 can you let us know week to week if NASA"s data is amenable to you? Like let us know which weeks it's ok to use NASA as a trusted source and when it's not. It's too hard to keep up with that ferris wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 bs. The point is, NASA is a double edged sword on the issue. meaning, mmgw is a farce. It is NOT fact - there are two sides to the controversy. Therefore, the leftwing campaign over mmgw and taxes, fees, demands, and dem progressive votes at the ballot boxes... are totally disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 (feel free to use that one throughout this board Cleve. I know I will) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 12 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: (feel free to use that one throughout this board Cleve. I know I will) ikr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 1 hour ago, calfoxwc said: bs. The point is, NASA is a double edged sword on the issue. if tgat were true, which it isnt u just think it is because u cherry pick their sht.. but if it were true why use them as a source to back ur argument at all? u are honestly bewildering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 12 hours ago, MLD Woody said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 12 hours ago, Clevfan4life said: if tgat were true, which it isnt u just think it is because u cherry pick their sht.. but if it were true why use them as a source to back ur argument at all? u are honestly bewildering no, it's true, denierman. http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4 49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency's activist stance toward climate change. The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts. The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action. The press release with attached letter is below. 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance. H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA's advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS. "These American heroes - the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there - are simply stating their concern over NASA's extreme advocacy for an unproven theory," said Leighton Steward. "There's a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA's current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust." Select excerpts from the letter: "The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements." "We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated." "We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject." The full text of the letter: March 28, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie, We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, (Attached signatures) CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science CC: butt Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years /s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years /s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years /s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years /s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years /s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years /s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years /s/ Anita Gale /s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years /s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years /s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years /s/ Gerald C. Griffin - JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years /s/ Thomas J. Harmon /s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years /s/ James R. Roundtree - JSC Branch Chief, 26 years /s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin - JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years /s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft - JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years /s/ Paul C. Kramer - JSC, butt.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, butt't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years /s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser - Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years /s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years /s/ Tom Ohesorge /s/ James PeaSock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years /s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years /s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt - JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years /s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years /s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, butt't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years /s/ Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years /s/ Dr. James Visentine - JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years /s/ George Weisskopf - JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years /s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 So, there ya go. That is 49 NASA scientists telling their own agency that they are wrong in the mmgw stance. Meanwhile.... dirty corrupt sombeitch bastidge obaMao damaged NASA, too. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/322918-how-barack-obama-ruined-nasa-space-exploration annnnnnnnd: Obamao abused and politically misused NASA, too, for leftwing political agenda purposes. https://capitalresearch.org/article/nasa/ don't miss this part: From the Moon to Global Warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 https://www.google.com/amp/s/scholarsandrogues.com/2012/04/25/errors-shortcomings-void-nasa-climate-letter/amp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 ur 49 nasa scientists were dealt with 6 yesrs ago when that letter came out. it was ghost written for them. real nasa scientists coukd have still made the case fir mmgw skepticism without makibg glaring mistakes. which leads one to the conclusion they kentbtheir names to it in exchange for sonething. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 It's not that NASA was lying about the raw data, that data has for the most part been visible. It's the interpretation or "normalizing" of the data that has been a complete hose job. The evidence is in their laughable attempts to hindcast warm periods like we are in right now. It's mainly because they don't know the real carbon sensitivity value to date, nor have they a true understanding of the actual drivers of climate change to plug in their models. Anyone who says otherwise is a provable liar because they have admitted to that fact already. In January of this year the IPCC dramatically lowered their range for ECS and other research orgs have too, since it doesn't look good to ignore certain laws of thermodynamics. They are finally hinting, without admitting it, at the fact they have oversold climate change from CO2 quite a bit, but that doesn't suggest adding greenhouse gas to the atmosphere doesn't contribute to warming. It's more of an amplifier than a driver though because it's ability to warm is directly linked to water vapor. In other words, we could put zero ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and the climate would still be warming, which makes climate change in of itself not man made. There is NO true consensus on CO2 linked climate change at all, and it's obvious because there is a tremendous amount of contrary research being reviewed and published if you choose to look for it. https://principia-scientific.org/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-headed-towards-zero/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted June 24, 2018 Report Share Posted June 24, 2018 Snow Down Under: Australian ski resorts celebrate best start to the season in 18 years' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ski/news/australian-ski-resorts-celebrate-best-start-to-the-winter-season/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 24, 2018 Report Share Posted June 24, 2018 MAGA! Severe winter coming in NE ohio this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.