Astronauts condemn NASA’s global warming endorsement

[truthseeker]

Astronauts condemn NASA’s global warming endorsement | Washington Examiner

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Interestingly, there is very little interest in this letter right now - the only articles seem to be from right leaning new sources. I'm curious to hear NASA's response.
What's frustrating about this topic is that people have a hard time separating their politics from the actual science, which shows that climate change is at least partially due to greenhouse gasses produced by man.

 

[pixelsmith]

Interestingly, there is very little interest in this letter right now - the only articles seem to be from right leaning new sources. I'm curious to hear NASA's response.
What's frustrating about this topic is that people have a hard time separating their politics from the actual science, which shows that climate change is at least partially due to greenhouse gasses produced by man.

you can't trust NASA's response. they have been caught red handed fudging the data.

 

[pixelsmith]

i have a couple dozen links to "no interest in the letter" but it gives me an error when i try to post them.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I found a lot of them too, but most seem to be right leaning new sites or climate change denial sources. I'd like to find one from a neutral source like BBC, CTV, CBC, or another non-American news source.

 

[pixelsmith]

what more do you need to know? NASA, IPCC, CRU, GORE and dozens of other agencies and bought and paid for scientists and washed up politicians have all been busted for manipulating data and temperature records in order to show a warming trend caused by human generated CO2. It just is not happening at any rate that needs to be concerned about. More CO2 = more food. Demonize and tax CO2 and you can control the world.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

what more do you need to know? NASA, IPCC, CRU, GORE and dozens of other agencies and bought and paid for scientists and washed up politicians have all been busted for manipulating data and temperature records in order to show a warming trend caused by human generated CO2. It just is not happening at any rate that needs to be concerned about. More CO2 = more food. Demonize and tax CO2 and you can control the world.

See, as soon as you make a statement like that, you approach this topic politically, and not scientifically. That's the problem.

 

[pixelsmith]

nearly ALL agencies and scientists who say human generated CO2 is warming the planet have been busted for manipulating data and the peer review process of scientific papers. even the IPCC scientists and reviewers are jumping ship. InvestigateDaily – 90 year old climate scientist rips into UN IPCC over conflicts of interest

you are the one subscribing to political views not scientific ones.

 

[pixelsmith]

and the manipulation continues... Sea Level Rise Retroactively Triples At Envisat – Overnight | Real Science

 

[pixelsmith]

A Single Cure For Overheating And Hypothermia

Posted on April 10, 2012 by Steven Goddard
Last year, NOAA told us that global warming causes lots of snow. This year, NOAA tells us that global warming causes a lack of snow.
If we reduce CO2, we can prevent having more or less snow, and instead have less or more snow. If you don’t understand, please report to Hansen’s underwater Manhattan office for an Obamacare lobotomy.

 

[pixelsmith]

before global climate disruption we had climate change , before that global warming, before that it was global cooling... and along the way we had ozone depletion, acid rain, acidification of the oceans, and now they say a mild winter is extreme weather. There is absolutely no science coming from Angelos camp of corrupt scientists.
1970s Ice Age Scare | Real Science

 

[CitizenK]

Let's not forget that the ice core samples show that this is cyclic AND that our planet is NOT the only one warming up at this time. Because it's a cycle. I do not know or can even guess why reputable org. such as NASA are not looking at all the data or lying whatever, but it is clear that they aren't as reputable as they once were. You want reputable, watch Nova's program regarding this.
About NASA, here's an example, the recent meteor type light seen in Texas was reported by space.com and others as being a type of metorite and then NASA says today it was just a jet contrail??? (like that's the new swamp gas or something)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So there's been more talk on this letter:

Attacks on climate science by former NASA staff shouldn't be taken seriously | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Is NASA really in an open revolt over climate change? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog

On Astronauts, NASA, and Climate Concerns - NYTimes.com

A response to the letter:

Response from NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati to Letter on NASA Climate Studies | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference


Of course, some people here will say that these sources are biased, do not follow the scientific method, are part of some sort of liberal conspiracy, etc.
Unless you are a climate scientist, you are not qualified contradict their findings because you can't - all you can do is read what the experts have to say .The truth of the matter is that according to climate scientists, the data points to greenhouse gasses having an effect on the climate of the Earth.
You can agree or disagree with how governments will approach the problem, but that is a political issue. Don't sweep all the science under the rug.
Of course, certain people will come back with how the scientists are trying to hide something, with the email scandal that they just won't let go, even though it doesn't change the data.

Don't go looking for answers from politicians, they have an agenda. Look at the science.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I wanted to post this from the New York Times blog, which basically sums up exactly how I feel on this subject from former astronaut

Russell Schweickart​

:

As you know, this is a subject which I feel has become so “religified” (having been converted to religious belief (personally created word) on both sides of the issue, that I assiduously avoid it altogether. I am not a climatologist (nor a meteorologist) and have no real scientific qualifications to comment on the substance of the debate.​

And… I suspect that the same goes for most of the signatories of this letter. And I suspect it would also apply equally to another poll, if one were to care to take it, of the hypothetical signatories to an analogous letter congratulating NASA for taking a courageous stand and urging it to speak even more strongly.​

As you know Andy, this is a complex issue indeed. My personal policy is to reasonably minimize my carbon footprint, on the precautionary principle, not because I know CO2 is responsible for the apparent global temperature increase. But I would also opt not to “break the bank” in minimizing societal CO2 production. We’re going to have to adapt to a warming world… and I think more effort ought to be put into looking into rational strategies to that end.​

But those are all very modest thoughts compared with the “religiously” held beliefs of the pro/anti human-caused-climate-change advocates.​

To my knowledge most of the signatories on this letter are in fact engineers (or former engineers). Some are (or were) scientists… But none, to my limited knowledge, are what I would consider qualified climatologists. AND… they have every right to state and argue for their opinion, and I fully support their right on that score.​

 

[pixelsmith]

now if you could just find any significant warming other than what might be expected after coming out of a recent ice age.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Here is a bit of science on the global warming issue:

No-one is arguing that man has caused global warming in the past (before 200yrs ago for instance). All proponents of the Global Warming (GW) hypothesis agree that we are talking about what man has let loose in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
Everyone agrees that even without man's help, the planet goes through various cycles, some short, some long.

The point where the science breaks down for me is this: We do not have a 'control' earth that is a copy of ours but without any man-made pollution. So even if we are looking at a rise in temperatures that seem to correspond with increasing pollution in the atmosphere, over the last 150 years say, no-one can say for sure it is pollution that is tipping the balance so the temperature goes up.
We have no previous or comparable data on such a huge question. What if the temperature on average starts to drop over the next decade? Well, even that would prove nothing either way, pro or con.
In science you either need repeatability or something for comparison etc to see if one factor is causing an effect.
Because some heating/cooling effects of the planet's atmosphere may happen over extended periods of time, or indeed short periods of time, we are pretty much flying blind with the science. We are working on models really because we have no real way of doing 'this experiment' again differently to see what happens. We are stuck living in this one and only one experiment to view.

Now, I do not know enough but atmospheric science to give an opinion on whether man has caused climate change or not. It seems way too soon to be making statements on what caused what considering the age of the planet (~6000years ). There cannot be enough data or time to know for sure.

However, and it's a big 'however', it certainly cannot hurt to create less pollution, to recycle as much as possible and generally stop spewing so much muck into the air we all breathe. Probably is wise to act as if something might be happening, even if only because no-one thinks reducing pollution is a bad thing. So I'm all for reducing pollution but I'm all for having an open mind on whether it really is us causing a change in the climate that would not have happened without us - but nobody can say for sure what's what simply for the reasons I outlined above, i.e we are in the experiment now. It will be for people far in the future to say for sure what caused what. We cannot right now as it's just too soon in the great scheme of things such as a planet's temperature averages.

 

[pixelsmith]

i have no problem creating LESS pollution. the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 is the cause. CO2 is not pollution, it is a life giving gas necessary for life on earth. we exhale it. I suggest those who demonize it should hold their breath for about 15 minutes in order to save the planet.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

i have no problem creating LESS pollution. the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 is the cause. CO2 is not pollution, it is a life giving gas necessary for life on earth. we exhale it. I suggest those who demonize it should hold their breath for about 15 minutes in order to save the planet.

Exactly Pixel - you would no doubt NOT be surprised to know that if you were to ask 100 people about the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle of animals and plants, the vast majority will have zero idea that what is a waste chemical to us, is fuel for plants, whose waste chemical byproduct is oxygen for us. Symbiosis.
I wonder how much of the amazon rainforest will still be around in 100years? There surely needs to be a balance between those absorbing CO2 and those exhaling it.

 

[pixelsmith]

If you are reading this, you are already dead.
NASA 1986 : All Life Extinct In A Few Decades | Real Science

 

[pixelsmith]

Hey Angelo we are zombies! I think NASA should stick to space exploration and keep their nose out of fear mongering.