Who still takes global warming seriously?

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov. Full Story

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28991 Jul 2, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought NASA didn't put rockets into space anymore?
I guess now NASA's main purpose is to support the exegerated hoax of manmade global warming.
They still launch a few at Wallops Island included some converted Talos.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#28992 Jul 2, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
...
The fact is that the majority of scientist do not believe in man made global warming any more. They seen to many models predicting doom and gloom proven wrong. They seen to many studies predicting all kinds of trouble if we didn't make major changes proven wrong in the fullness of time. They have also seen public interest fade and with that political interest.
Not true.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#28993 Jul 2, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
They still launch a few at Wallops Island included some converted Talos.
They have laid the groundwork allowing private industry to have a go at making space endeavors profitable. Without them we probably would not have had communications satellites as well as military, weather, geological, and other very valuable investment. NASA is good.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28994 Jul 2, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
They have laid the groundwork allowing private industry to have a go at making space endeavors profitable. Without them we probably would not have had communications satellites as well as military, weather, geological, and other very valuable investment. NASA is good.
What, you think that we would not have satellites with NASA. Funny thing is that the military was conducting such research before NASA was formed. Given the usefulness of communications, recon, weather, navigation satellites to the military they would of continued and we would of still had most of them. In fact the military already has it's own communications, recon, and navigation satellites. The GPS satellites are owned and run by the United States Air Force who has it's own launch facilities at Vandenburg. Funny thing is that many of the motors that NASA uses are old ICBMs like the Alas converted to loft satellites.

Funny thing is that China has just launched it's own version of GPS. And they are not the only country that is launching satellites or making advances to do so. North Korea and Iran are also looking to do so.

Of course we might of not gone to the moon or sent probes to other planets. Then again, the military has invested in research in the past. Sending people to the moon would mean advancements in various areas just like it did with NASA. When JFK demanded that the US beat the USSR to the Moon it would of been an order from the Commander and Chief.

http://defensetech.org/2011/12/29/china-launc...

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/...
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#28995 Jul 2, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean by scientist your high priests of man made global warming then yes. But many of those same people are not practicing science but promoting social change.
You talk about honor and integrity and yet have to practice it. You claim I have to cheat and yet to provide any proof that I have. Maybe you should try to live with honor and integrity before you try to explain it to others.
Of course accusing me of cheating is just the latest attempt to insult me and stain my reputation instead of dealing with the facts. Dealing with how people in general no longer believe in man made global warming, that peer reviewed studies (by scientist by the way) have disproved AGW and now there are thousands of those peer reviewed studies debunking man made climate change. Dealing with how many of those predictions of sea level rise made just a few years ago have not shown the changes promised. Just five years ago people like you were promising if we did not make major changes that sea side cities would have sea water lapping at the base of buildings. Five years later an no water lapping at the buildings. Buildings built at the water's edge a century earlier are still sitting on dry land.
The fact is that the majority of scientist do not believe in man made global warming any more. They seen to many models predicting doom and gloom proven wrong. They seen to many studies predicting all kinds of trouble if we didn't make major changes proven wrong in the fullness of time. They have also seen public interest fade and with that political interest. Look at the last conference in Rio.
Peer reviewed studies have proven AGW time after time and there are not thousands of peer reviewed studies debunking man made climate change. You've been asked to prove your ridiculous statements a hundred times and all you ever produce is bullshit papers by bullshit "scientists".

The fact is that the majority of scientist do believe in man made global warming and can back it up with real evidence.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#28996 Jul 2, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
Peer reviewed studies have proven AGW time after time
Try not to exaggerate, nothing in science has ever been 'proven' once, no matter how much you want it to be?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#28997 Jul 2, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
What, you think that we would not have satellites with NASA. Funny thing is that the military was conducting such research before NASA was formed. Given the usefulness of communications, recon, weather, navigation satellites to the military they would of continued and we would of still had most of them. In fact the military already has it's own communications, recon, and navigation satellites. The GPS satellites are owned and run by the United States Air Force who has it's own launch facilities at Vandenburg. Funny thing is that many of the motors that NASA uses are old ICBMs like the Alas converted to loft satellites.
Funny thing is that China has just launched it's own version of GPS. And they are not the only country that is launching satellites or making advances to do so. North Korea and Iran are also looking to do so.
Of course we might of not gone to the moon or sent probes to other planets. Then again, the military has invested in research in the past. Sending people to the moon would mean advancements in various areas just like it did with NASA. When JFK demanded that the US beat the USSR to the Moon it would of been an order from the Commander and Chief.
http://defensetech.org/2011/12/29/china-launc...
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/...
Funny thing is how childish you seem.

Funny thing is how scattered you sound.

Funny thing how you sound like a Valley Girl even if you aren't from California.

Actually.

After all.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#28998 Jul 2, 2012
caveman wrote:
Funny thing
Funny thing
Funny thing
Actually.
After all.
Funny thing, around 90% of your posts are in reply to tina anne.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#28999 Jul 2, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
What, you think that we would not have satellites with NASA. Funny thing is that the military was conducting such research before NASA was formed. Given the usefulness of communications, recon, weather, navigation satellites to the military they would of continued and we would of still had most of them. In fact the military already has it's own communications, recon, and navigation satellites. The GPS satellites are owned and run by the United States Air Force who has it's own launch facilities at Vandenburg. Funny thing is that many of the motors that NASA uses are old ICBMs like the Alas converted to loft satellites.
Funny thing is that China has just launched it's own version of GPS. And they are not the only country that is launching satellites or making advances to do so. North Korea and Iran are also looking to do so.
Of course we might of not gone to the moon or sent probes to other planets. Then again, the military has invested in research in the past. Sending people to the moon would mean advancements in various areas just like it did with NASA. When JFK demanded that the US beat the USSR to the Moon it would of been an order from the Commander and Chief.
http://defensetech.org/2011/12/29/china-launc...
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/...
NASA was created in July 1985. NASA did pioneering work in space applications such as communications satellites in the 1960s. Other satellites such as Echo, Telstar, Relay, and Syncom were built by NASA or by the private sector based on significant NASA advances. Without NASA, we would not have had the rapid advances that we had in space technology. The military only wanted spy satellites and possible bases from which to launch military weapons.

How many billions have been returned from the satellite projects so far because of the rapid development by NASA?
menoworry

Farmington, NM

#29000 Jul 2, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but it is not. Saying it is will not change the fact.
Is too.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#29001 Jul 2, 2012
DumBozo wrote:
How many billions have been returned from the satellite projects so far because of the rapid development by NASA?
Why don't you tell us?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#29002 Jul 2, 2012
DumBozo wrote:
NASA was created in July 1985.
And?
DumBozo wrote:
NASA did pioneering work in space applications such as communications satellites in the 1960s.
Even though it wasn't created until July 1985?
-
It's time for your nap, grandpaw.
menoworry

Farmington, NM

#29003 Jul 2, 2012
Climate Dissent Launches at NASA
July 2nd 2012
Respected astronaut, Walt Cunningham said,'NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over anthropogenic global warming.' So why isn't it?
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1090/cl...
This from Eric Berger
Is NASA really in an open revolt over climate change?
Much, and more, has been made of a letter released yesterday [Apr 2012] in which 49 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists admonish the space agency for taking a high-profile stance on climate change: namely that itís happening due to human activity, and that it could have catastrophic consequences for the planet.
The crux of the letter is this:
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASAís 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.
The letter raises several issues that I would like to address.
First of all, that these men and women are skeptical about human-caused climate change is not surprising. I know a number of them and have interviewed several of them during the last five years in which I have covered NASA. Many, such as Walt Cunningham, Larry Bell and Harrison Schmitt, are well known skeptics.
What these men and women are not is climate scientists. Most are not even scientists in the sense that they have pursued scientific research during their careers, in any discipline.
What these men and women are are heroes. They are the space programís greatest generation, which built the spacecraft that landed on the moon, first ventured into the heavens and laid the groundwork for the space shuttle and International Space Station programs. Many of them are also deeply unsatisfied with the current state of human spaceflight.
But this, again, does not make them experts in the field of climate change.
Secondly, letís address their central assertion, that NASAís viewpoint on climate change is an extreme one, and that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are not having a significant warming effect on the planet.
It is true that there is vigorous debate in the scientific community about how significant warming will be in the coming century, but there is almost no disagreement among climate scientists that the planet is, and will continue to warm due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. A recent study of warming by previously skeptical scientists, in fact, found that the planet has continued to warm in accordance with scientific predictions.
Finally thereís the issue of NASAís reputation.
The signatories of the letter are clearly upset with the political advocacy of James Hansen, who is probably the most prominent climate scientist in the United States, and heads NASAís Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen is in the habit of saying controversial things, such as climate change being a moral issue on par with slavery.
The letter writers say:
At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASAís current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
This, I think, is a valid point. With a significant fraction of the U.S. public skeptical of climate science, a high profile position taken by the agency does hurt its reputation and could cost its science programsí funding in the future.
But what is NASA to do? Many of its satellites are providing climate scientists the data they use to make their findings. Is the space agency to deny its own data?
Ultimately I believe this is probably part of a campaign to force Hansen out. Hansen has successfully resisted previous efforts to keep him quiet.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#29004 Jul 2, 2012
menoworry wrote:
James Hansen, who is probably the most prominent climate scientist in the United States, and heads NASAís Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen is in the habit of saying controversial things, such as climate change being a moral issue on par with slavery.
Or Sea level could rise five meters by 2100.
menoworry

Farmington, NM

#29005 Jul 2, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Or Sea level could rise five meters by 2100.
First thing I've seen from you that makes sense, linear man. Keep up the good thinking.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#29007 Jul 2, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you tell us?
Rhetorical question, but billions and billions!

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#29008 Jul 2, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Peer reviewed studies have proven AGW time after time and there are not thousands of peer reviewed studies debunking man made climate change. You've been asked to prove your ridiculous statements a hundred times and all you ever produce is bullshit papers by bullshit "scientists".
The fact is that the majority of scientist do believe in man made global warming and can back it up with real evidence.
And for every one of those peer reviewed studies that supported AGW there has been several peer reviewed studies to disproved it. So who is producing bull shit by the truck load.

The fact is that I have proved it repeatedly. In some cases I even book marked the sites. The fact is that the majority of scientist no longer believe in man made global warming anymore. The problem was they saw the real evidence and changed their minds. It also helped that much of the "evidence" you are talking about was discovered to be more fiction than fact. Like the IPCC AR4 report and all those lovely e-mails from the CRU. Or how about you can take Mann's hockey stick calculations and feed it random numbers and get the same result.

You complain about my not providing proof and yet you have not bothered to provide any.

Time to face the music. Or in this cased you have already danced and the piper is awaiting payment.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#29009 Jul 2, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing is how childish you seem.
Funny thing is how scattered you sound.
Funny thing how you sound like a Valley Girl even if you aren't from California.
Actually.
After all.
Funny how child this your post was. Complete with a few childish insults which you will try to claim are fact even if any expert would look at and laugh at.

I also notice your not talking about climate change. Which would fit the pattern of someone who is losing. When you canot defeat the message then attack the messanger.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#29010 Jul 2, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
NASA was created in July 1985. NASA did pioneering work in space applications such as communications satellites in the 1960s. Other satellites such as Echo, Telstar, Relay, and Syncom were built by NASA or by the private sector based on significant NASA advances. Without NASA, we would not have had the rapid advances that we had in space technology. The military only wanted spy satellites and possible bases from which to launch military weapons.
How many billions have been returned from the satellite projects so far because of the rapid development by NASA?
And who says the miltary would of not done the same work or didn't. You claim that NASA was responsible for many of the rapid advances while ignoring in the same time period the military was also making rapid advances in similar areas.

The fact is the military also wanted communications satellites. After all, nothing better to communicate with all those far flung bases and getting the pictures from those orbiting spy satellites. And lets not forget what those spy satellites which also were the basis for weather satellites. One of the uses were to try to predict the weather so you could know when could get those clear shot of that missile silo or that airbase. Kinda hard to count the number of submarines in port when the thing is covered in clouds now. They were developing not only satellites but launch platforms that wee better than NASA's. You may want to claim they were no but don't forget your comments about weapons. They wanted something that could move a bigger warhead further and be more accurate when it arrived.

The fact is that the military was just as capable of producing those rapid advancements. You may deny it but then again what are we using to argue about it. The Internet which was something the military developed as a way to promote research and as a robust gound based communications system that could survive a nuclear attack.

I know your real complaint is wth the fact that NASA could of been replaced. After all, the military was already involved with space research. And if JFK had turned to the CJCS and ordered him to get a man to the moon and return him safely. Told him it was a matter of national pride that it be done and done publically that they would of done it. More likely faster since they would of had a head start.

Sorry, but there is little NASA has done that the military would f not done. Aircraft reserach would of been done by defense contractors who still on the leading edge. Also notice how NASA seems to be using old ICBM's and other military missiles and in some cases even military aircraft.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#29011 Jul 2, 2012
an Teener the Valley Girl thinks they signed the paper after they hired some lifeguards and beachcombers to bum around Antarctica, hittin all the bars and hotel parties, and write down what they saw when they weren't drunk.......

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><> <>

The Gulf of Misinformation
Contributed by Jonathan M. Lilly | Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012

Last week a research paper I was involved in was published in a highly regarded journal in the earth sciences. This was a proud moment. Myself and the other three authors of the paper had put in a great deal of time and energy in order to carefully analyze a unique set of data from underneath one of Antarctica's major ice shelves. As you may recall, the past decade has seen the catastrophic breakup of a number of ice shelves, some as large as small states. This has prompted climate scientists to examine in more detail the interactions between the ocean and the ice. Our results suggest that the rate at which *some* ice shelves are melting is less than previously thought. We did not question the overall conclusion that the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is currently losing mass, which has consistently been concluded from several different methods.|| A few days after our article was published, a piece profiling our work appeared at the Register of the UK written by Lewis Page entitled, "Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show." This is the equivalent of turning the statement "the cancer is not as bad as we thought" into "you don't have cancer." The severely distorted version of our study's conclusions then spread rapidly across the internet. It is a pattern that climate researchers have unfortunately observed many times, part of a widening gulf of misinformation between scientists and society. As one of the authors of this study, I can only repeat: this is not what we said. We have been misrepresented, and you, the reader, have been misled by some of those who claim---as scientists and journalists both surely should---to provide you with facts.|| The "Project" link below gives the press release for our paper, and "Reference" links to the Register article.

Caption by Open-Ocean Staff and Jonathan M. Lilly
Reference | Project | Gallery | Back
Permalink: http://www.open-ocean.org/gallery/show/107

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
5 Reasons why global warming also known as clim... 37 min IBdaMann 32
Let's have a balanced plan for producing the el... 1 hr Solarman 19
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr gcaveman1 32,968
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Just Making It Al... 47,481
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr No It Izant 1,492
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 3 hr Earthling-1 27,309
Power plants lead in greenhouse gas pollution 4 hr Earthling-1 3

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE