Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Karlis

Former NASA Scientists, Astronauts Criticize

103 posts in this topic

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week criticizing 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, according to Leighton Steward of Plants Need CO2. arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here goes another one.

Coming from a guy at the head of "Plants need CO2" is quite interesting and that is immediatly telling me something is wrong.

I quickly looked at it (website) and it's completely rediculous. We all know more CO2 is good for plants but we also know that global warming, that is partially driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions will outweight any advantage by far.

I have searched for this group. Here is a breif summary of what I found on sourcewatch.org.

"Plants Need CO2 was a climate complacency front group that popped up in 2009, with a mission "to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2...". One of its directors, Corbin Robertson of Quintana Minerals, "is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government" - and was a Koch strategy group attendee."

"Earlier, registration information reportedly tied it to Quintana Minerals Corporation, which "provides oil and gas exploration services to the energy sector" and "offers crude oil and natural gas production services."

"According to the Plants Need CO2 website, "Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2..."

Something is quite wrong here. I would even say that it's rediculous.

I hope I'm not the only one that is seeing it.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the horrific downsides to global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Can't beleive the crap they feed us. Here are some of their brilliant "facts".

CO2 is not a pollutant because the current excess of CO2 does not present a direct danger (breathing it). They claim that there is nothing to worry about until we reach 8 000 ppm. They say CO2 will never directly harm us and that the indirect concequences are all positive.

CO2 is not a cause of global warming because in the past, CO2 level have changed after the temperature itself. They also state that the global temperature is actually decreasing as well as the CO2 levels (since Y2K). Oh and they say solar activity is also diminishing at a constant rate.

Global warming will not have a negative impact on us because we will be able to grow more food. They also state that since cold is killing more poeple than heat, nothig to worry about. And finally, they say we will easily adapt to it and that in the end, it will only be a positive thing.

CO2 does not acidify water because water is alkaline. And it will have no negative concequence because it'll release CO2 as it warms up which is as they say; a good thing.

So you see not how absurd it is? Some of their claims do hold some truth but they omit the most important stuff thus their conclusion is totally biaised.

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What are the horrific downsides to global warming?

- Carbon sinks collapse (reduction); plants and algae mainly, oceans too at some point

- Losses in agriculture; either too much of not enough water in many places

- Sea level rise; majorly due to thermal expansion, millions will eventually have to move because of floods

- Possible collapse of Gulf Stream; radical change in local climate (mainly Europe) and eventually a drastic change in global air-water currents due to change in water physico-chemical properties

- Accute possibility of weather extremes; heat waves, storms, precipitations, drought

- Famine and dehydration in most vulnerable places like Africa for instance; millions if not billions could be threatened by lacking food and water supplies

- Economical collapse (perturbation); the World Bank report on climate change points this out entirely, the costs/loses of inaction will overpower the costs/losses of change

- Threat of extinction towards other species which will inevitably reach us at one point if nothing is done; we are part of the food chain and depend on other species and climate

- Sudden liberation of methane hydrates; irreversible process that could add several degrees to global temperature

- If global temperature reaches 5°C and more of warming (could be by the end of the century if we stall), we will face extinction in a not so far future

Just to name a few overall concequences.

Edited by JayMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they really think this, it's little wonder they are 'former' NASA scientists! I wonder if they also question whether we went to the moon and whether the Earth is more than 6000 years old ..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they really think this, it's little wonder they are 'former' NASA scientists! I wonder if they also question whether we went to the moon and whether the Earth is more than 6000 years old ..... :rolleyes:

Right on!

I can't beleive how much stupidity they can put up.

Critical fact: Earth's temperature changes, then CO2 follows.

Truth: In the past, yes, but not today. Then the warming that we have initiated will, like in the past, provide more GHG release. Only the initial cause is diffrent here.

Critical fact: The sun supplies over 99% of the heat to Earth's surface.

Truth: Yes but solar irradiance have only went up by 1 W/m2 which provided an increase in radiative forcing of about 0.2 W/m2 compared to anthropogenic GHG which added about 1.5 W/m2 of forcing to the atmosphere. Yet, this same website says that sun's irradiance have been decreaisng since Y2K at a constant rate and still is. Just like the temperature and carbon dioxide levels.

Critical fact: More research is needed on all climate drivers; not just a focus on one driver.

Truth: We are already aware of that. The IPCC report covers them all the best they can according to current knowledge and understanding and do not (like they imply) only focus on one drive. They only state that anthopogenic carbon dioxide emissions have the greatest impact on radiative forcing for instance.

*Sigh* :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow, 49 scientist among whom is one meteorologist:

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, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass'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 Peacock - 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, Ass'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

who evidently lasted 5 years with NASA...

I have the strange feeling that somebody has been on "shopping tour" again... how much did it cost this time?

Edit: forgot to post the Source

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 49 scientist among whom is one meteorologist:

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, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass'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 Peacock - 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, Ass'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

who evidently lasted 5 years with NASA...

I have the strange feeling that somebody has been on "shopping tour" again... how much did it cost this time?

Edit: forgot to post the Source

Well now it's even better.

That has to be one of the most rediculous attempt to spread climato-skeptic crap I have ever seen.

Their main argument:

- Plants need CO2 so more of it will be 100% benefical for the whole planet and species (including us).

Hence the "Plants Need CO2" website.

Who the hell can even think of taking this seriously?

According to them, we should just keep on burning coal/oil/gas because it's going to save us. Literally.

Wow. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Carbon sinks collapse (reduction); plants and algae mainly, oceans too at some point

I'm not understanding the grammar here. Plants and algae are going to die in a carbon-rich, warm environment is what I think you're saying. Maybe. I'm not a biologist, but that might be how it works. Oceans, yeah, they don't hold carbon infinitely.

- Losses in agriculture; either too much of not enough water in many places

Already a problem. Not a new one.

- Sea level rise; majorly due to thermal expansion, millions will eventually have to move because of floods

Can someone say, Don't build your house next to the ocean because the ocean's present low state is a temporary geologic phenomenon? Oh, said it.

- Possible collapse of Gulf Stream; radical change in local climate (mainly Europe) and eventually a drastic change in global air-water currents due to change in water physico-chemical properties

Only a problem if you really believe that the Earth has always, will always, and should always have the same climate as it has now.

- Accute possibility of weather extremes; heat waves, storms, precipitations, drought

Possibility? You're going to have to be more compelling than that. Maybe if all those record hurricane seasons they keep predicting actually happen, I'll believe this one.

- Famine and dehydration in most vulnerable places like Africa for instance; millions if not billions could be threatened by lacking food and water supplies

Again, already happening. Let's not blame global warming for our own crappy social justice.

- Economical collapse (perturbation); the World Bank report on climate change points this out entirely, the costs/loses of inaction will overpower the costs/losses of change

Alright, let's change the economic policy. This isn't set in stone.

- Threat of extinction towards other species which will inevitably reach us at one point if nothing is done; we are part of the food chain and depend on other species and climate

If anyone was surprised that species become extinct...well they shouldn't have been. The geologic record is pretty clear on this one.

- Sudden liberation of methane hydrates; irreversible process that could add several degrees to global temperature

Are you saying that a consequence of global warming is global warming? Well done, bravo. Dang that was some stellar deduction.

- If global temperature reaches 5°C and more of warming (could be by the end of the century if we stall), we will face extinction in a not so far future

From what, sweating? And if we do, fine. It's our time to go. We deserve it. We spun and lost...it's our own fault.

Just to name a few overall concequences.

Maybe I'm an incurable optimist, but those either didn't seem like new problems, or they didn't seem that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm an incurable optimist, but those either didn't seem like new problems, or they didn't seem that bad.

That is mostly the case as long as the disaster happens to somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

- If global temperature reaches 5°C and more of warming (could be by the end of the century if we stall), we will face extinction in a not so far future

No we will not! How did you draw that conclusion?

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

who evidently lasted 5 years with NASA...

I have the strange feeling that somebody has been on "shopping tour" again... how much did it cost this time?

Edit: forgot to post the Source

I would like to add he is not an atmospheric scientist! Or at least he doesn't have a degree in the fields which is needed to be a meteorologist.

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a question of math, or in this case probability statistics of experimental science. The earth's climate has never been fixed and stable and we observe climate change only after the fact and over millions of years not decades. The tools used for measurement have sampled local weather conditions for only the past 150 or less years. Their accuracy has changed dramatically in that time. Their sample size and distribution has not been uniform across the planet and is much too little in too short a time frame.Secondary methods of CO2 and climate estimations from fossil studies are even less accurate and more sparse.

To be brief, we are in a post-glacial warming cycle for the past 10,000 years. Past times have been a lot warmer with greater CO2 than we have now (by point measurements). Finally, there is not enough data to accurately predict a worldwide trend much less data with sufficient accuracy to justify the contention that one source of CO2 is a greater contributor than any other. These poorly developed climate models are no more accurate than predicting the end of the world by the Mayan calendar. Their models don't account for all the proper variables and their boundary conditions are poorly established.

By the way you don't need to be a atmospheric scientist to recognize poor theoretical model building and data gathering. This is basic knowledge from any undergraduate physics lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA - ohhh LOL at that lot.

Never made a true statement in their history!!

Closer than ever to getting found out as well - HOPEFULLY!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a question of math, or in this case probability statistics of experimental science. The earth's climate has never been fixed and stable and we observe climate change only after the fact and over millions of years not decades. The tools used for measurement have sampled local weather conditions for only the past 150 or less years. Their accuracy has changed dramatically in that time. Their sample size and distribution has not been uniform across the planet and is much too little in too short a time frame.Secondary methods of CO2 and climate estimations from fossil studies are even less accurate and more sparse.

To be brief, we are in a post-glacial warming cycle for the past 10,000 years. Past times have been a lot warmer with greater CO2 than we have now (by point measurements). Finally, there is not enough data to accurately predict a worldwide trend much less data with sufficient accuracy to justify the contention that one source of CO2 is a greater contributor than any other. These poorly developed climate models are no more accurate than predicting the end of the world by the Mayan calendar. Their models don't account for all the proper variables and their boundary conditions are poorly established.

Regarding Climate Models i agree, as should every scientist in the world. We cant even predict a 7-days weather forcast with more than 70% accuracy. No atmospheric scientist would defend climate models, everyone agrees they are ****.

By the way you don't need to be a atmospheric scientist to recognize poor theoretical model building and data gathering. This is basic knowledge from any undergraduate physics lab.

By the way you dont need to be an atmospheric scientist to recognize the CO2 warming effect. Its basic knowledge for any undergraduate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here goes another one.

Coming from a guy at the head of "Plants need CO2" is quite interesting and that is immediatly telling me something is wrong.

I quickly looked at it (website) and it's completely rediculous. We all know more CO2 is good for plants but we also know that global warming, that is partially driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions will outweight any advantage by far.

I have searched for this group. Here is a breif summary of what I found on sourcewatch.org.

"Plants Need CO2 was a climate complacency front group that popped up in 2009, with a mission "to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2...". One of its directors, Corbin Robertson of Quintana Minerals, "is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government" - and was a Koch strategy group attendee."

"Earlier, registration information reportedly tied it to Quintana Minerals Corporation, which "provides oil and gas exploration services to the energy sector" and "offers crude oil and natural gas production services."

"According to the Plants Need CO2 website, "Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2..."

Something is quite wrong here. I would even say that it's rediculous.

I hope I'm not the only one that is seeing it.

Peace.

Well put. Obviously the big checkbook has come out for all the small minds. Many people that immediately discount such fact as fiction because they do not do their own research could at least go to U-tube & wimp.com to watch vids showing air and ship traffic, history of nuclear tests, growth of deserts, deforestation & more. There is one thing that needs to be brought into the models to bring them up to date, and that is global dimming, which I believe wlll put global warming ahead of schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding the grammar here. Plants and algae are going to die in a carbon-rich, warm environment is what I think you're saying. Maybe. I'm not a biologist, but that might be how it works. Oceans, yeah, they don't hold carbon infinitely.

Sorry. English isn't my first language.

Plants in many places will die either as a concequence or droughs, floods or forest fires. Also erosion can also take out vegetations off coasts. Algae will die in many places (already happening) as a result of water acidification. CO2 converts to H2CO3 into water. When you see a green lake turning clear blue for instance, it means algae died.

Already a problem. Not a new one.

Right. But it'll get worst over time.

Can someone say, Don't build your house next to the ocean because the ocean's present low state is a temporary geologic phenomenon? Oh, said it.

Already more than half the wolrd's population live close to coastal areas. Many very populated coastal areas are also under sea level. We are talking about millions if not billions of endangered people.

Only a problem if you really believe that the Earth has always, will always, and should always have the same climate as it has now.

No. The point here is that it'll have very negative effects in many places for humans. If it was a breeze and not a problem, we wouldn't care. People have adapted to current climate and if the change is to abrupt, they won't all be able to adapt new climate as much as it'll keep changing. Not everyone is rich and living in the comfort of a big industrialized city.

Possibility? You're going to have to be more compelling than that. Maybe if all those record hurricane seasons they keep predicting actually happen, I'll believe this one.

The mechanisms behind that are very complex and I am no expert in the matter. But I know it's hard to predict with precision how/where/when it's going to happen. Keep in mind though that the energy supplier of a hurricane is heat (thermodynamics). By getting warmer, water will provide more energy.

Again, already happening. Let's not blame global warming for our own crappy social justice.

I was mainly referring to the already poor amount of food the have from poor agriculture and rare water supplies. Climate changes will inevitably destroy most if not all of the already low supplies in several places.

Alright, let's change the economic policy. This isn't set in stone.

The Wolrd Bank made a 400 pages report about the current costs (2010) of climate changes and how it's going to evolve depending on multiple scenarios. The economic problem related to it is already set in stone and will become a real crisis if we do nothing. If you want to think that they lie or don't know what they talk about, feel free to e-mail them. You can't take the economy out of climate changes. Not at all.

If anyone was surprised that species become extinct...well they shouldn't have been. The geologic record is pretty clear on this one.

There is always a cause for extinction. And past massive extinctions didn't involve humans but still had concequences on other species. You don't seem to understand that if a great deal of species become extinct as a result of global warming we will be in major crap. During the Permian–Triassic extinction event, temperature and greenhouse gases have abruptly raised and that killed 95%+ of marine species and 70% of vertebrates. We are talking of about 8°C of warming. Our current warming could get us already to 5°C+ by 2100.

Are you saying that a consequence of global warming is global warming? Well done, bravo. Dang that was some stellar deduction.

I am simply saying that a raise in temperature will provide an accute liberation of non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases that will lead to even more warming. Like methane hydrates for instance. This is a very dangerous timed bomb.

From what, sweating? And if we do, fine. It's our time to go. We deserve it. We spun and lost...it's our own fault.

We have the power to change things and minimize the impacts of it. But the more we wait, the worst it's going to be. There is a soon-to-be-reached point of "non-return" ahead.

Maybe I'm an incurable optimist, but those either didn't seem like new problems, or they didn't seem that bad.

Not optimistic but you mostly lack knowledge in the matter. I'm not saying that to insult. It's ok to not know things. But when I see you going around and say so much non-sense, I need to point it out.

I'm no expert, I'm not perfect and if I ever posted something that is so wrong, I'll admit it and correct it. I haven't done all the studies myself of course so like everyone else, I rely on the scientific community for facts. Once given, I go around and learn about the physics behind it. That is for me the best way to get the picture.

Peace. No harm intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Climate Models i agree, as should every scientist in the world. We cant even predict a 7-days weather forcast with more than 70% accuracy. No atmospheric scientist would defend climate models, everyone agrees they are ****.

By the way you dont need to be an atmospheric scientist to recognize the CO2 warming effect. Its basic knowledge for any undergraduate.

The usual Bull****.... from sceptics. Global Warming is not the same as Local Cimate weather predictions.

Are the seas not expanding (ask the Samoans), are global weather systems not behaving out of sync?

Seriously, there is not a single specialist left in the field who does not recognise the Sea - change in the Earths climatology. We are approaching a Solar Minimum, so that can't be the cause,

You are so much like the AGW deniers... you think Local Weather patterns hold true across the Globe... You are deluded my friend, probably in denial, but that denial is dangerous because you have nowhere else to go, Do you have no plans to evacuate your loved ones when your own ignorance is shown to be just that?

I genuinely feel sorry for you... You have sucked in the Hook, Line, and Sinker from the deniers, bit in the end it doesnt matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that this group of professionals is rising up to protest against claims they consider to be inaccurate being made by NASA. I expect that they are aware of, and frustrated by, many more inaccuracies being promulgated by what most accept as the definitive voice of science. Kudos. Don't stop here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

JayMark, I am curious. You appear to know so much about man-made global warming. I am curious as to why it is being so rigorously questioned if it is so irrefutable and undeniable. Clearly I was right in terms of the holes with regards to the data, like I stated in previous threads..

Perhaps with your knowledge, you should be involved with these publicized debates regarding global warming.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual Bull****.... from sceptics. Global Warming is not the same as Local Cimate weather predictions.

:rolleyes:

No you are correct its not the same, its alot harder to predict. A lot more variables.

Are the seas not expanding (ask the Samoans)

Yes

are global weather systems not behaving out of sync?

Ahh, a good question. Are they? What is the "norm" for weather systems? If you can answer that question i might take you seriously.

Seriously, there is not a single specialist left in the field who does not recognise the Sea - change in the Earths climatology. We are approaching a Solar Minimum, so that can't be the cause,

:rolleyes: Who said the sun was responsible for sea rise? Which has nothing to do with climate models. Do you even know what a prediction model is? Or how they work?

You are so much like the AGW deniers... you think Local Weather patterns hold true across the Globe... You are deluded my friend, probably in denial, but that denial is dangerous because you have nowhere else to go, Do you have no plans to evacuate your loved ones when your own ignorance is shown to be just that?

:rolleyes:

I wouldn't say i'm in the same boat as AGW deniers, since i believe in AGW. But that aside, can you read? If so, what do you think i meant by saying "By the way you dont need to be an atmospheric scientist to recognize the CO2 warming effect. Its basic knowledge for any undergraduate"

I genuinely feel sorry for you... You have sucked in the Hook, Line, and Sinker from the deniers, bit in the end it doesnt matter

:rolleyes: Have i?

I await your answer MASTER

:nw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we will not! How did you draw that conclusion?

I was not specifically talking about us as in us, humans. I misinterpreted myself.

I didn't draw it myself. Here is a quote from the IPCC report. There's a lot more to be said if you search it. I don't have time to post everything.

"Recent estimates indicate that 25% (~1,125 species) of the world's mammals and 12% (~1,150 species) of birds are at a significant risk of global extinction (Stattersfield et al., 1998; UNEP, 2000). One indicator of the magnitude of this problem is the speed at which species at risk are being identified. For example, the number of birds considered at risk has increased by almost 400 since 1994, and current population sizes and trends suggest an additional 600-900 soon could be added to these lists (IUCN, 1994; UNEP, 2000)."

So that is a threat of extinction. As I have learned since elementary school, we are part of the food chain and part of the whole ecosystem. Some species have a very important role to play in our life like bees. Those simple insects that are currently disseapearing at an alarming rate are responsible of at least a third of our ariculture. In many places like here in Québec, even more. Many have already ran out of business as a concequence, others need to literally import bees, a 53 footer full of hives. Can you immagine the costs and amount of work this represents for doing something you didn't have to even worry about in the past?

So in conclusion, that's what I mean by threat of extinction. We (humans) perhaps won't become extinct but billions are to be seriously theatened if we do nothing.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that this group of professionals is rising up to protest against claims they consider to be inaccurate being made by NASA. I expect that they are aware of, and frustrated by, many more inaccuracies being promulgated by what most accept as the definitive voice of science. Kudos. Don't stop here.

Professionals whose specialty is of all but one is totally unrelated to the area of expertise needed, and the one is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. Their opinion is about as relevant as yours and mine, only you and me have not worked and (in some cases) been fired by NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JayMark, I am curious. You appear to know so much about man-made global warming. I am curious as to why it is being so rigorously questioned if it is so irrefutable and undeniable. Clearly I was right in terms of the holes with regards to the data, like I stated in previous threads..

Perhaps with your knowledge, you should be involved with these publicized debates regarding global warming.

I will surely be involved in debates in the near future. I am going back to school soon to specialize. I just happen to love natural sciences to begin with, especially physics, chemistry and biology and also happen to learn, analyze, comprehend and record data quite easily and rapidly. It's really a question of interest to begin with.

There is a simple and very evident reason why there is such a debate. Money.

Who does that mainly involve? Fossil fuel industries and their minions of course.

If you crawl and investigate on who is part of all those notorious groups going against man-made global warming, you almost always inevitably find a fossil fuel industry, directly or indirectly linked to it (like in the case of the "Plants Need CO2" group related by the OP). But the debates, as credible as they can sometimes seem, have never resulted in succeding to demonstrate that the two main conclusions are worng (warming + human cause).

Global warming is undeniable and irrefutable. Us beeing the major cause in undeniable and irrefutable. Using the past as an argument for instance is somehow irrelevent to the final conclusions because the past causes aren't involved with current warming. It's as if I said that I don't beleive that some wild animals die today as a result of human pollution simply because some wild animals have arleady died in the past before we existed. The only considerable cause here that is natural is the sun but it only has contributes to about 10% of total raise in radiative forcing. Rest is either directly or indirectly of anthropogenic nature.

I'm not defending this point because I simply want to be right. I am not perfect anyways and do not know everything. I defend it because it's real and of vital importance that we do something about it for the sake of humanity and all lifeforms. I do it because I love the human race and I love my planet. And finally, it also coincides with what I love the most; natural sciences.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.