LakeEffectKing Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Balderdash! The sciences of global warming, cliate change and AGW are not left/right political positions. Public policy clearly is, and that is the backdrop from which your side is coming. The failure of you to see this as both political and scientific is why skeptics are winning....we aren't that crafty, nor organized. Your efforts are turning the dumb people off.....and there are a lot of dumb people out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 the study you reference specifically polled climate scientists, not all scientists, so you are drawing a false equivalency. The study you reference is misleading. The two questions that "specifically poll climate scientists" are 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels,do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? I'm part of the consensus. The 97%. I would answer yes to both questions. "Significant" is a relative term. What this means is that the poll is total crud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 It would be more impressive if they actually had real data and evidence to support their position. See my thread "Role of Solar Activity in Climate Change" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 I have to agree with Phillip, trixie et. al. This letter doesn't prove much in the climate science field. It is nice to know that there are many NASA scientists supporting a skeptical stance, but it would be more impressive if most of them were actual climate scientists. Yes, the climate scientists are the hardest ones to pay off. They are very stubborn to take big oil money. \sarc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 So, by your litmus test, we are to dismiss all other "scientists" that have different opinions, at hand, just because their "science" isn't exactly within the constraints of some arbitrary definition? So, does that include you? Are you a "climotologist"?? Should we ignore your opinions? Of course not. Whether you realize it or not, you nor any of the fine folks who have contributed to this thread are immune from bias....and if you want to ignore that fact you truly do so at your own peril, wrt understanding how science is to be conducted through it's completion. Challange your own beliefs, and you can at times release yourself from subjective ascertions. So, by your litmus test, any scientist has equal say in every scientific field? Of course not. (See? I can construct strawmen too) Where have I ever stated I'm bias-free? Nowhere. Neither are you. Nobody is. That's a red herring, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are sticking up for the worst tactics--muddying up the field by tacitly endorsing nearly-meaningless "petitions" such as this one. That you're still arguing that this petition is pertinent is frankly bewildering to me. I shouldn't have said anything, though... I just don't have the will to argue indefinitely about nothing any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Nice sparring with everyone tonight....off to spend some QT with wife and kids....don't rip LEK too bad.....just a different perspective is all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 So, by your litmus test, any scientist has equal say in every scientific field? Of course not. (See? I can construct strawmen too) Where have I ever stated I'm bias-free? Nowhere. Neither are you. Nobody is. That's a red herring, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are sticking up for the worst tactics--muddying up the field by tacitly endorsing nearly-meaningless "petitions" such as this one. That you're still arguing that this petition is pertinent is frankly bewildering to me. I shouldn't have said anything, though... I just don't have the will to argue indefinitely about nothing any longer. You are a PC.....I'm a MAC....not always compatible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. Establishing the mainstream scientific assessment, climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows: The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3] "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4] If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations. Source Do the NASA scientists and former employees petitioning the hierarchy believe NASA is alone in professing acknowledgment of AGW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 See my thread "Role of Solar Activity in Climate Change" Your not trying to disprove GHG warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Your not trying to disprove GHG warming. No, of course not. Are they (the NASA scientists) really trying to disprove GHG warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Eliminating the Lay Person who has little to no knowledge of this "issue". That's the majority of the general public. So out of the professionals and arm chaired folks who have knowledge and an opinion on this. The ones who spit in the face of science, do you think the majority know the truth and represent a lie on purpose or do you think the majority is just that delusional that they truly can not see reality? Most skeptics are guided by their general conservative political philosophy or ideology. Not that skeptics are exclusively conservative politically, but they represent the largest percentage of skeptics. The 'oil money' doesn't go to LEK, it goes to conservative/libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and Cato. Those organization produce the propaganda and skeptical tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Do you value expertise? An armchair astronomer, cosmologist or studier of climate can potentially offer up valuable new insight, although rare these days. Ideas originating from outside the formal discipline must pass muster from those within to become accepted. Most alternative climate change scenarios have not passed the sniff test, never mind a deep, rigorous analysis by the 'pros'. However, that fact is lost on the general public. Perhaps it would be a good idea to peruse the past year or so of Sky and Telescope and take note of the important work being done by amateur astronomers these days. Not only is their work recognized by the professional community but many amateurs have even been listed as co-authors in peer reviewed published papers. Citizen science is becoming more widespread even in other disciplines and one can not forget the Cooperative observers who provide a grest deal of the climate info those 'pros' work with. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Perhaps it would be a good idea to peruse the past year or so of Sky and Telescope and take note of the important work being done by amateur astronomers these days. Not only is their work recognized by the professional community but many amateurs have even been listed as co-authors in peer reviewed published papers. Citizen science is becoming more widespread even in other disciplines and one can not forget the Cooperative observers who provide a grest deal of the climate info those 'pros' work with. Steve The armchair astronomers (I'm one incidentally) as well as amateur observers (also enjoy a night out under the stars....used to be an active member of ATMOB...living in Lowell, MA , not far from the Westford Haystack Observatory clubhouse)..provide valuable contributions and quality observations to assist the professional astronomy community. The same can be said for the COOP weather observers who's dedicated contributions to the climate surface record are of tremendous value. These fine folks do not however, work to advance theoretical knowledge absent the professional community. The David Levy's of the world are born every day. Many if not most new comet discoveries are made by sophisticated amateurs. Amateurs monitor variable stars. Search for extragalactic supernova. In contrast we have rogue climate scientists, undereducated meteorologists, non-climate scientists, political venues and Bethesdaboys telling us the professional community of climate researchers is full of it and we should listen seriously to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Good morning LEK! Good morning my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Good morning my friend. Back at ya! I pulled the post because I thought you missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 can you provide a meaningful criticism of the methodology of Andergregg study? SEE HERE for the actual study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Looks like the NASA group is back at it. May 11, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie: In our letter of March 28, 2012, we, the undersigned, respectfully requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. On April 11th, Dr. Waleed Abdalati responded, holding that: “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.” Eight days later, at a senate hearing, Dr. Abdalati, did just that, concluding that Sea-Level rise within the next 87 years projects within a range of 0.2 meters to 2 meters, with lower ranges less likely while “the highest values are based on warmest of the temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21st century.” Abdalati added: “The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.” The range and imprecision of this conclusion is astounding! “Commonly considered?” Is this science by poll? If hard data points to a provable rise, it should be stated with its probability. Can you imagine one of your predecessors, Dr. Thomas Paine, declaring, “Our Apollo 11 Lunar Lander’s target is the Sea of Tranquility, but we may make final descent within a range that includes Crater Clavius”? We are not trying to stifle discourse, but undisciplined commentary, lacking in precision, is wholly inappropriate when NASA’s name and reputation is attached. This letter should end the discussion, as a protracted discourse on this topic is not in NASA’s interest, but a commitment from you to equal or exceed the agency’s reputation for careful reliance upon rigorous science and accurate data most certainly is! Join us, please, in encouraging your colleagues to achieve the level of excellence the world has come to expect from America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration! Waiting to do so is not an option! [signed 41] PS Waiting to send was not an option either –we have fewer signatures than the first, as not everyone was reachable and only one opted out. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Cargo Engineering, Crew Syst. Div. 32 years /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Director of Mission Support, 23 years /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Div., 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/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years /s/ Gerald D. 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/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. PE – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 14 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 Div., 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/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Div., 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/ Richard McFarland – ARC, Mgr. Tech development VMS & Motion Simulators, 28 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/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years /s/ Alex Pope – JSC, Aerospace Engineer, Engr. Directorate, 44 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 Div., Engr. Dir., 48 years /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC, Sim. Dev. Branch Chief, Systems Dev. Div., Mission Support Dir., 26 years /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 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.– Dir. Expendable Equipment (Ext. Tank, Solid Boosters, & Shuttle Upper Stages), 20 years /s/ James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engr. Directorate, 30 years /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – ARC, GSFC, Hdq. - Meteorologist, 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Looks like the NASA group is back at it. May 11, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie: In our letter of March 28, 2012, we, the undersigned, respectfully requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. On April 11th, Dr. Waleed Abdalati responded, holding that: “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.” Eight days later, at a senate hearing, Dr. Abdalati, did just that, concluding that Sea-Level rise within the next 87 years projects within a range of 0.2 meters to 2 meters, with lower ranges less likely while “the highest values are based on warmest of the temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21st century.” Abdalati added: “The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.” The range and imprecision of this conclusion is astounding! “Commonly considered?” Is this science by poll? If hard data points to a provable rise, it should be stated with its probability. Can you imagine one of your predecessors, Dr. Thomas Paine, declaring, “Our Apollo 11 Lunar Lander’s target is the Sea of Tranquility, but we may make final descent within a range that includes Crater Clavius”? We are not trying to stifle discourse, but undisciplined commentary, lacking in precision, is wholly inappropriate when NASA’s name and reputation is attached. This letter should end the discussion, as a protracted discourse on this topic is not in NASA’s interest, but a commitment from you to equal or exceed the agency’s reputation for careful reliance upon rigorous science and accurate data most certainly is! Join us, please, in encouraging your colleagues to achieve the level of excellence the world has come to expect from America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration! Waiting to do so is not an option! [signed 41] PS Waiting to send was not an option either –we have fewer signatures than the first, as not everyone was reachable and only one opted out. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Cargo Engineering, Crew Syst. Div. 32 years /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Director of Mission Support, 23 years /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Div., 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/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years /s/ Gerald D. 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/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. PE – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 14 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 Div., 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/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Div., 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/ Richard McFarland – ARC, Mgr. Tech development VMS & Motion Simulators, 28 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/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years /s/ Alex Pope – JSC, Aerospace Engineer, Engr. Directorate, 44 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 Div., Engr. Dir., 48 years /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC, Sim. Dev. Branch Chief, Systems Dev. Div., Mission Support Dir., 26 years /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 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.– Dir. Expendable Equipment (Ext. Tank, Solid Boosters, & Shuttle Upper Stages), 20 years /s/ James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engr. Directorate, 30 years /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – ARC, GSFC, Hdq. - Meteorologist, 5 years Those pesky astronauts, why dont they just get on board and shut-up! /sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.