Former astronaut scoffs at global warming

Dr Jorgensen wrote:

Mr. PeterW, are you always so obtuse? And Mr. Cousin Jethro, I am getting nada other than being true to myself and my scientific education to honor the scientific method where an unproven hypothesis is not truth but conjecture, what about you?

you are posing as a doctor? Is that being true to yourself?

My husband,a nuclear physicist, is one of over 31,000 scientists who agree with you and signed their afirmation on the Petition Project.(See Petition Project.org ) Still, the press ignors anyone who disagrees with Hansen and company.Please keep speaking out on this issue. I feel we are entering a new dark age!

Excellent Ms. Hutchins! I too signed it, as a Ph.D. in paleoclimatology I decided to go public as well with this. Many of my associates have as well, and sooner or later nature will prove what fools those are who believe such incomplete and inaccurate science this AGW is based on. Unfortunately, at the speed our new President is burning his science bridges and endorsing the hype and politics of AGW, we will be paying a high price for this folly. Our utility, gasoline, and general energy bills will skyrocket as the taxes, both visible and invisible, start to be added to our lives.

So now, what are you posing as?

Gord wrote:

<quoted text>
Hell, my Post#109 clearly shows that the AGW Energy Budget Diagrams absolutely VIOLATES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy.
PS: AGW relies on the Colder Atmosphere HEATING a Warmer Earth.
Greenhouse effect
"The greenhouse effect refers to the change in the thermal equilibrium temperature of a planet or moon by the presence of an atmosphere containing gas that absorbs and emits
infrared radiation.[1] Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, warm the atmosphere by efficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation emitted
by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds.
As a result of its warmth, the atmosphere also radiates thermal infrared in all directions, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec...

Using your logic(?) I suppose you would leave your windows open during the winter. After all, the window glass is close to the same temperature as the outside air. To keep the inside warm, the glass would have to be warmer than the inside air. Otherwise it would continue to release more heat out than allow heat in. Therefore, there is no way a closed window could serve to keep the inside of a house warm. How dumb can an engineer be?

Zorkon 756 wrote:

If everybody would hold their breath for an hour, global warming would go away. At any rate, no one would complain about it again.

My solution is a bit like this without the bad consequences. Strong conservation, efficiency, & frugality can get us out of our economic mess & dramatically cut CO2 emissions. Small feather footed cars, turn your thermostats down,well insulate your small home & careful planning will cut our emissions by over half, WITHOUT HAVING TO KILL ANYONE.

The people who can do the MOST individual good are the ones that waste the most. Example: if a lead foot driver will become a feather foot, he will (without buying any other vehicle), cut his auto emissions be 20+%.

Become efficient...for yourself....for your country...for the world.

Dr Jorgensen wrote:

Mr. PeterW, are you always so obtuse? And Mr. Cousin Jethro, I am getting nada other than being true to myself and my scientific education to honor the scientific method where an unproven hypothesis is not truth but conjecture, what about you?

Ah, ad hominen, the refuge of one those with no valid argument.

My question was simple. What is your motivation for asking a rhetorical question that has an easy answer?

And now I have another question, why would one who claims to be honoring the scientific method ask a rhetorical question that has political undertones?

One wonders. One also wonders why you won't answer a simple question and instead resort to ad hominen attack.

Dr Jorgensen wrote:

Mr. PeterW, are you always so obtuse? And Mr. Cousin Jethro, I am getting nada other than being true to myself and my scientific education to honor the scientific method where an unproven hypothesis is not truth but conjecture, what about you?

I have been reading the thermometric records of the last hundred plus years, plus the scientifically developed estimates going back hundreds of thousands of years -- and like combating with "creationists," who oppose evolution for religious reasons -- I find I am bemused to note how many "scientists," can't draw reasonable conclusions from simple temperature charts and reports from NOAA: denial lives. I can only compare it to a Newtonian friend I have, who cannot admit of Relativity, because he can't understand it: what is it you do not understand about rising global temperatures, friend?

Doreen Hutchins wrote:

My husband,a nuclear physicist, is one of over 31,000 scientists who agree with you and signed their afirmation on the Petition Project.(See Petition Project.org ) Still, the press ignors anyone who disagrees with Hansen and company.Please keep speaking out on this issue. I feel we are entering a new dark age!

The press don't ignore such, they refute them with the actual temperature records, woman

PeterW Santa Fe wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, ad hominen, the refuge of one those with no valid argument.
My question was simple. What is your motivation for asking a rhetorical question that has an easy answer?
And now I have another question, why would one who claims to be honoring the scientific method ask a rhetorical question that has political undertones?
One wonders. One also wonders why you won't answer a simple question and instead resort to ad hominen attack.

Aside: the simple explanation is that he may be a Republican political scientist, not a paleoclimatologist: they know we are nearly at a 150,000 year temperature plateau -- Republicans know that not many oil company executives want to hear that data

Dr Jorgensen wrote:

So now, what are you posing as?

claiming to be a doctor - for sure.

truthist wrote:

Perhaps he will reply here. Would that be great or what!
I would like to know why the senator thinks the increases in temperature and CO2 concentration are related and what he predicts for the future.

Look who's lurking. Yeah, like all the other "important", people you always thought would reply to your posts. LOL!

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
Aside: the simple explanation is that he may be a Republican political scientist, not a paleoclimatologist: they know we are nearly at a 150,000 year temperature plateau -- Republicans know that not many oil company executives want to hear that data

is just a local crank who posts against all things related to improving the environment.

We should do something about all them cows pooping and releasing methane gas, poluting our world... Let's all go to BK and McD and eat all the cow products until the world runs out of beef... Or catch that methane to fuel up the cars and little buses. It may pose a discomfort for the cows but it's an American renewable energy!

Hello wrote:

HERE HERE! Global warming is a farce, another way for the elitists to take our money to fix their problems. The earth has been through things alot worse than humans, multiple ice ages, magnetic reversals of the poles, solar flare storms, i don't think gas and plastic is really going to be a problem for the earth.

I disagree.

The alarmist don't have a foot to stand on.. The so called last 10 years being the warmest on record is a farce. Fact is the last 10 years it has been cooling, with the last 2 years being the coldest. The Obummer administration is using the same tactics with the financial mess, ALL GLOOM AND DOOM. This financial mess was started back in september when someone or group started pulling out billions of $$ out of the financial system within minutes. This was at the same time that McCain/Palin was leading in the polls, these alarmist couldn't let that happen if they wanted their plant (Obummer) to be in office.

So I say to the alarmist.. STICK IT where the sun doesn't shine!

I think everybody who has seen the film
" An Inconvenient Truth " by Allan Gore
was schocked by the on going climatical
changes on ourplanet earth , tsunamies,
tornados,floods and unusual temperature
extremes however the reasoning is still
questionable, since we have experienced
on of the coldest winter in Europe and
northen part of America in controversy
to the global warming Euphorie. Why ???
What doyou think about the fact that a
melting iceberg will need 80 kcal / kg
to turn into water without to raisethe
temperature of the water might havehas
caused the cold weather in Europe with
havey snow falls in Germany /Italy and
Spain ???

Or is there a new ice age coming ahead ?

HoweverI amlookingforwardtoread thefull
textof Jack Schmitt's resigmationletter
to find an explainationto tot his world
wide conspiracy on s human based global
warming which might have be caused from
changes Universe connected with our sun

Papa Sasquatch wrote:

We should do something about all them cows pooping and releasing methane gas, poluting our world... Let's all go to BK and McD and eat all the cow products until the world runs out of beef... Or catch that methane to fuel up the cars and little buses. It may pose a discomfort for the cows but it's an American renewable energy!

If the global temperatures rise much more from the CO2, the frozen methane in the permafrosts of our northern lands may warm & become gaseous. Oh ya...there is nearly 1 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs (whole lot more than cows produce) of methane with a 21 times greater rate of warming than CO2 ticking way.

Doug wrote:

The alarmist don't have a foot to stand on.. The so called last 10 years being the warmest on record is a farce. Fact is the last 10 years it has been cooling, with the last 2 years being the coldest. The Obummer administration is using the same tactics with the financial mess, ALL GLOOM AND DOOM. This financial mess was started back in september when someone or group started pulling out billions of $$ out of the financial system within minutes. This was at the same time that McCain/Palin was leading in the polls, these alarmist couldn't let that happen if they wanted their plant (Obummer) to be in office.
So I say to the alarmist.. STICK IT where the sun doesn't shine!

How about giving us all a hint about where you get your statistics on mean global surface temperature going down? I think you are pulling facts up "from where the sun doesn't shine" for your own arguments.

Here are the numbers I use:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Where do you get your bs?

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
Well then genius has it all figured out: tell us, gordo, how is the average temperature rising, then and the majority of glaciers melting -- on the strength of your hot air?

I have already proven that AGW and the "atmospheric greenhouse effect" Violates many Laws and Principles of Science.

It is therefore Fraudulent and can be totally ruled out as a cause of any "Global Warming".

Notice that one does not even have to talk about CO2 to dis-prove AGW.

However, you AGW'ers seem to have a hard-on mentality for CO2, so let's talk about it.
----------
The Past and Future of Climate
http://climatepolice.com/Past_Future_climate....
----------
(See Fig.9 Climate over Geologic Time in the above link)

The Earth has always gone through cycles of warmer and cooler periods than is happening now.
CO2 levels have been lower as well as about 12 times higher than today.

The Earth's temperature was totally un-correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels when CO2 exceeded about 350 ppm.

Hell, the Earth went into an Ice Age when CO2 levels were about 4500 ppm....and twice when CO2 was about 350 ppm.

"Lack of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation" so atmospheric CO2 can be totally ruled as a cause of Earth temp change.

And, even more recently when CO2 varied between about 180 ppm and 300 ppm, there was good correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the Earth's temp....except that CO2 changes FOLLOWED the Earth's temperature with a lag of about 800 years.
(see Fig.7 The Last Four Ice Ages in the link above)

Again, it is impossible that atmospheric CO2 caused the Earth's temp to change....cause and effect were reversed.

Also, notice that during this time period there were at least five times that Earth was warmer than today....even though CO2 levels were lower.
----------
So now we have elliminated any AGW (including CO2)causes for any "global warming"...so what could be causing it?

continued...