Former astronaut scoffs at global warming

Earthling wrote:

Forum AGW alarmists are in the same boat as sceptics, you'll all have to wait and see...

Deniers want to force everyone to WAIT AND SEE before looking at the way we lead our lives & change our ways to conservation, efficiency & frugality. Meanwhile, the rich keep raking in the $400 million stock options & retirement packages.

Silly goose. Your ploy is obvious. It is time to strongly conserve now. Frugality is its own reward. Efficiency will dig us out of the pit our world is in....beginning now.

Your time is wasted because science & Earth Ways continue to prove what you don't want to be known.

My time teaching conservation, efficiency & frugality is not wasted

I have no ploy and I am frugal, but just as you will have to wait and see, so will I.

Hurrah for Jack Schmitt. He is exactly correct, that science does not progress by "majority votes", and also that the Earth has turned towards cooling in recent years, and that the CO2 theory is lacking in substantial proofs. The best evidence is, that our larger weather-cycles are solar-moderated, either by solar-variation cycles or Milankovitch orbital variations. We today have nearly no sunspots, a major change in the cyclical patterns, reminiscent of the Maunder Minimum which happened in the middle of the Little Ice Age. We have slowly been emerging from that colder period, which is why temperatures have been rising since the 1700s, well before the modern age of dramatic industrial ouput. CO2 has only a tiny fraction of the influence of water vapor and clouds upon global temperature, but good climate science has been suppressed in favor of political ideology. The political ideologists in our universities and research establishments have thrown out the older and more accurate, proven understandings homeostatic negative-feedback mechanisms in natural corrections of climate away from extremes, towards the illusion of "tipping points", which is a unscientific, politically-driven idea. Or driven by Hollywood disaster movies and such. CO2 theory is bad junk science, no matter how many Nobel Prizes are given out, or Presidents who become "believers". Nature will have the last word.

Co2 represents .00038 % of atmospheric gas. If all six billion of us just hold our breath for an hour or two, maybe we could reduce it by .0001%. What a difference that would make. Are you ready, GO!

Shazaam! Ain`t we beating this dead planet/Horse to a pulp.

I know this ain`t the last word, But realize this!

A Carbon tax is a Global tax which is taxation without representation.

TAX REBELLION NOW!!!!!!!!

Non Violent Non Participation.
Stop paying for your bondage!!!!!!!

Small Town wrote:

Does it matter if global warming is man made or nature ........ we got a problem here Houston!

First of all: if "climate change" is "natural"... Then it's not a problem, just something we have to live with and adapt to (I recommend everyone start to purchase quality parkas and winter boots). I'm one of those who believe the entire "global warming" issue (as described by the alarmist and their minions) is a bunch of hooey - being pushed by those who wish to attain more political power (Gore), increased funding for their pet projects (Hansen), or commercial monetary gain (everyone else who is advocating "going green"). Follow the money - it will lead you to the truth of the matter.

Please wrote:

<quoted text>
stop!

No... by "refusing to listen" to those who disagree with your PERSONAL VIEWPOINT - which is most likely pro-manmade-global-warming (which is not the TRUTH, just an opinion)... you're being intellectually dishonest.

" 'Consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities." .

Bingo...

Obskeptic wrote:

Co2 represents .00038 % of atmospheric gas. If all six billion of us just hold our breath for an hour or two, maybe we could reduce it by .0001%. What a difference that would make. Are you ready, GO!

Your figure has too many zeros in it, but let's put it this way, if the planet was free of mankind, climate change would carry on as usual.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: bpayne37@comcast.net
To: meisenfeld@frontier.net, mike@sanjuancitizens.org
Cc: "Bob Collins" , "Melvin Davidson" , "brian dohe" , "Fred Fair" , "Cargill Hall" , "art morales" , "John Sobolewski" , "Robert & Susan Wayland" , bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:42:34 PM GMT -08:00 Tijuana / Baja California
Subject: ACTION ALERT – Deadline of February 23, 2009 to submit public comments: EPA needs to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from Desert Rock
Mike

Thanks.

http://www.prosefights.org/coal/coal.htm#eise...

I will write.

cheers
bill

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/theinvesti...

Black_Eagle wrote:

The political ideologists in our universities and research establishments have thrown out the older and more accurate, proven understandings homeostatic negative-feedback mechanisms in natural corrections of climate away from extremes, towards the illusion of "tipping points", which is a unscientific, politically-driven idea

The most obvious example of tipping points are the dozens of times the climate has collapsed into a glacial period.

"natural corrections" was dogma for ages when people assumed humans were the center of the solar system and therefore the Earth was somehow "intelligent" in acting stable for us.

Turned out that idea was wrong.

The Mad Cat wrote:

<quoted text>
No... by "refusing to listen" to those who disagree with your PERSONAL VIEWPOINT - which is most likely pro-manmade-global-warming (which is not the TRUTH, just an opinion)... you're being intellectually dishonest.

No - fool, there is no intellectual discussion going on here. Anyone who gos to topix for that is out of their mind.

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...

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?

Obskeptic wrote:

Co2 represents .00038 % of atmospheric gas. If all six billion of us just hold our breath for an hour or two, maybe we could reduce it by .0001%. What a difference that would make. Are you ready, GO!

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

Well said Dr. Schmitt. He is obviously another brave scientist willing to show that the AGW empire has no clothes and no scientific basis for their exaggerated and hyperbolic claims. The AGW believers are like religious dogmatists, trying to shout down and silence any and all opposing views, intimidating all who would question their orthodoxy. Lord Hansen received a $400 million payout for his promotion of AGW from the Obama stimulus package, all to study AGW science when he and Obama say the science is settled. What's to study??? Another waste and a political payoff.

Zorkon 756 wrote:

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

Could be a solution to overpopulation by obese Rush Limbaugh fans, too -- actually a little quiet meditation could bring about a partial solution, better than driving to Sonic for one of those awful dogs

Dr Jorgensen wrote:

Lord Hansen received a $400 million payout for his promotion of AGW from the Obama stimulus package, all to study AGW science when he and Obama say the science is settled. What's to study??? Another waste and a political payoff.

I would think the answer to your question is obvious, especially to one who claims to be a scientist in this field.

Even if it is settled that global warming is happening, there is still a lot we don't know about it, hence the need to continue to study all its mechanisms and variables, and such, would you not agree?

So the question I have is, why would someone who claims to possess some knowledge of this science ask such a rhetorical question that has such an obvious answer? The only reason I can come up with is that you’re trying to spin the issue in favor of your own political bias. Perhaps you can offer another reason?

Dr Jorgensen wrote:

Well said Dr. Schmitt. He is obviously another brave scientist willing to show that the AGW empire has no clothes and no scientific basis for their exaggerated and hyperbolic claims. The AGW believers are like religious dogmatists, trying to shout down and silence any and all opposing views, intimidating all who would question their orthodoxy. Lord Hansen received a $400 million payout for his promotion of AGW from the Obama stimulus package, all to study AGW science when he and Obama say the science is settled. What's to study??? Another waste and a political payoff.

And, Al Gore got a Nobel, and Bush got ridiculed, and the thermometers just keep on rising -- what are you getting to say this, your b.s.?

Reminder:
http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/

Nice index -- even a cool article about why Americans are skeptics -- in literature it was known as the "Cassandra effect," here it's something to do with Republican corruption, apparently, or plain stupidity amongst those of no political or economic affilitation

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?