Who still takes global warming seriously?

Full story: Farmington Daily Times

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.
Comments
27,841 - 27,860 of 30,825 Comments Last updated Jun 9, 2013

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28996
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28997
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28998
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28999
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29000
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29002
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29003
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29004
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29005
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29007
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29008
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29009
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29010
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29011
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29012
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny thing, around 90% of your posts are in reply to tina anne.
Naw. you know you lie, not 90%.

Besides, I just love her. She's so cute...and so helpless....

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29014
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Could have and would have are two different things. The military is pretty secretive and does not like to share with civilians. NASA did it and it has paid off many times.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29015
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reuters: Rising sea levels cannot be stopped over the next several hundred years, even if deep emissions cuts lower global average temperatures, but they can be slowed down, climate scientists said in a new study.

A lot of climate research shows that rising greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for increasing global average surface temperatures by about 0.17 degrees Celsius a decade from 1980-2010 and for a sea level rise of about 2.3 millimeters a year from 2005-2010 as ice caps and glaciers melt.

Rising sea levels threaten about a tenth of the world's population who live in low-lying areas and islands which are at risk of flooding, including the Caribbean, Maldives and Asia-Pacific island groups.

More than 180 countries are negotiating a new global climate pact which will come into force by 2020 and force all nations to cut emissions to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius this century - a level scientists say is the minimum required to avert catastrophic effects.

But even if the most ambitious emissions cuts are made, it might not be enough to stop sea levels rising due to the thermal expansion of sea water, said scientists at the United States' National Center for Atmospheric Research, U.S. research organization Climate Central and Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Melbourne.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29016
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DumBozo wrote:
Rhetorical question, but billions and billions!
Have you managed to work out when NASA was created yet, grandpaw?
doofy

Warrenton, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29017
Jul 3, 2012
 
The WX in VA has been very hot. I think we went to far. (point of no return).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the Global Warming Forum right now

Search the Global Warming Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 min Grey Ghost 45,900
Save the earth! (persuasive essay) (Nov '07) 33 min SpaceBlues 183
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr DonPanic 32,133
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 10 hr litesong 3,303
EarthSave 10 hr Acolyte 2
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 10 hr litesong 1,483
Australia is drying out thanks to our emissions 12 hr Stan Dandyliver 153
•••
•••