Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Breath-taking climate denial nonsense, this time aimed at NASA


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 23 May 2012 - 03:23 PM

I’ve been getting lots of email and other notes about a group of 49 people — including some ex-astronauts — who have written a public letter to NASA complaining about the space agency’s stance that global warming exists and is caused by humans.
You can guess how I feel about it. But to be clear: it’s more denialist spin, nonsense, and noise. You can read the original leter here, and then I strongly suggest reading Shawn Otto’s devastating deconstruction of it. You can also read the response to this letter by NASA’s Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalatim if you’d like.
I’ll note that it doesn’t matter that former astronauts signed this propaganda letter — I’ve written about Apollo 17′s Harrison Schmitt and his climate change denialism before — but I note it does matter that of the 49 signatories on that letter, not one is an actual working climate scientist. That should give you pause. I’ll also note that 49 former NASA employees is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total. It’s not hard to find statistical outliers in a group that big. I knew a creationist who worked for NASA!
But really, my very favorite thing about this is the group behind the letter: a non-profit called Plants Need CO2, which, if you can believe it, actively advocates that more carbon dioxide is good for us.

http://blogs.discove...-aimed-at-nasa/



#2 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 26 May 2012 - 01:28 AM

I suggest that you read my posting on the earlier thread which critiques the propaganda methods perfected by the Nazis; they are highly applicable to the rants to which you have provided links.

In the meantime, I will repeat my questions from a previous post: what caused “The Roman Warming Period”, “The Medieval Warming Period”, and “The Little Ice Age”; and what caused each to end?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by: “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming”; and how is each distinguished from the others?

#3 Cryscat

Cryscat

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Southern Calif.
  • Interests:spirituality, art, design, reading, photography, my family (of course), nature, biology, genetics... I could go on, but I think I will stop here.

Posted 27 May 2012 - 10:08 PM

this is a paranormal forum. why is climate change on this forum?
Don't take life too seriously, no one ever gets out alive.

#4 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 28 May 2012 - 12:25 AM

I suggest that you read my posting on the earlier thread which critiques the propaganda methods perfected by the Nazis; they are highly applicable to the rants to which you have provided links.

In the meantime, I will repeat my questions from a previous post: what caused “The Roman Warming Period”, “The Medieval Warming Period”, and “The Little Ice Age”; and what caused each to end?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by: “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming”; and how is each distinguished from the others?


Natural variations caused those to start and end. But your entrenched resistance and insistence that this present upswing is a completely natural event flies in the face of all the data available that points human use of fossil fuels playing a role.

They're use interchangeably. Asking for definitions is not relevant. It's a smoke screen tactic.

I post these articles so more reasonable people can use you as a barometer against unreasonableness.

this is a paranormal forum. why is climate change on this forum?

Skeptics

Disbelievers, alternative theories, all viewpoints are welcome.

If it weren't for my occasional post this section would be dead

#5 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 28 May 2012 - 11:19 PM

this is a paranormal forum. why is climate change on this forum?

Actually, the whole “Great Global Warming Scam” discussion is very relevant and right on point.

Normally, when a discussion arises around an issue pertaining to Spookology, there is an inevitable input from the cheerleaders for science.

These individuals rarely have anything to contribute to the specific discussion, but usually wax lyrical on the wonderfulness of “science”, with an emphasis on its purity and role as the bastion of truth.

Unfortunately, these cheerleaders invariably have immersed themselves in the mythology of science, and have very little appreciation of the realities, and real world practices of science.

Specifically, the reality of science is that it is just like all other human endeavours: it is rife with greed, fraud, ambition, jealousy, tribalism, dogmatism and ideology. The combination of these factors makes the wise person very circumspect in their dealings with “science” and its practitioners; particularly, their pronouncements should be taken with a huge dose of salt.

The whole “Great Global Warming Scam” is a perfect illustration of “The Perfect Storm” in science; all of the elements noted above have come together to very publicly illustrate the realities of the real world practices of science, in all their naked glory.

The relevance of this to Spookology is that it demonstrates that the thing holding back the study of “supernatural phenomena” is not the lack of compelling evidence; it is the dogmatism and vested interests in “science”.


If you look at “The Great Global Warming Scam”, then you can clearly see that the same tribal mentality that produced this fraud is holding back the required studies in Spookology. The same arguments that are being used in support of the scam, are the ones used by “scientists” to impede the serious study of spookolgy.

So, next time you enter into a discussion with a “scientist” about Spookology, and they trot out the usual tired arguments about the wonderfulness of “science”, just refer them to “The Great Global Warming Scam”.

Edited by canuck, 28 May 2012 - 11:19 PM.


#6 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 09:28 PM

I will repeat my questions from a previous post: what caused “The Roman Warming Period”, “The Medieval Warming Period”, and “The Little Ice Age”; and what caused each to end?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by: “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming”; and how is each distinguished from the others?


Still waiting for answers to these questions......................

#7 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The cold, scary world of Skepticism

Posted 31 May 2012 - 11:14 PM


I will repeat my questions from a previous post: what caused “The Roman Warming Period”, “The Medieval Warming Period”, and “The Little Ice Age”; and what caused each to end?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by: “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming”; and how is each distinguished from the others?


Still waiting for answers to these questions......................


Ohreally already answered your questions. I guess you are so busy comparing those that disagree with you to nazis and calling them cheerleaders that you missed it.

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha


#8 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:14 PM



I will repeat my questions from a previous post: what caused “The Roman Warming Period”, “The Medieval Warming Period”, and “The Little Ice Age”; and what caused each to end?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by: “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming”; and how is each distinguished from the others?


Still waiting for answers to these questions......................


Ohreally already answered your questions. I guess you are so busy comparing those that disagree with you to nazis and calling them cheerleaders that you missed it.

I suggest that you re-read the questions asked, and then the “answers”.

It is a well established propaganda tactic to answer a question that was not asked, then pretend that the original question was answered.

This is a tactic that is typically applied when you don’t know the answer to a question; the intent is to confuse the issue and deflect attention away from the fact that you don’t know.

I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with me; I do have a problem with people who choose to argue a point without first having informed themselves of the issues.

Still waiting for the answers..............

#9 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 10:19 PM

I guess he did miss it the first time. I've added color to the font so he won't miss it this time.

Natural variations caused those to start and end. But your entrenched resistance and insistence that this present upswing is a completely natural event flies in the face of all the data available that points human use of fossil fuels playing a role.

They're use interchangeably. Asking for definitions is not relevant. It's a smoke screen tactic.

I post these articles so more reasonable people can use you as a barometer against unreasonableness.


#10 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The cold, scary world of Skepticism

Posted 01 June 2012 - 11:38 PM




I will repeat my questions from a previous post: what caused “The Roman Warming Period”, “The Medieval Warming Period”, and “The Little Ice Age”; and what caused each to end?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by: “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming”; and how is each distinguished from the others?


Still waiting for answers to these questions......................


Ohreally already answered your questions. I guess you are so busy comparing those that disagree with you to nazis and calling them cheerleaders that you missed it.

I suggest that you re-read the questions asked, and then the “answers”.

It is a well established propaganda tactic to answer a question that was not asked, then pretend that the original question was answered.

This is a tactic that is typically applied when you don’t know the answer to a question; the intent is to confuse the issue and deflect attention away from the fact that you don’t know.

I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with me; I do have a problem with people who choose to argue a point without first having informed themselves of the issues.

Still waiting for the answers..............


More insulting retoric. You should really try to clean up your act.

He gave you a straight, honest answer. You just do not like it.

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha


#11 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 10:31 PM





I will repeat my questions from a previous post: what caused “The Roman Warming Period”, “The Medieval Warming Period”, and “The Little Ice Age”; and what caused each to end?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by: “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming”; and how is each distinguished from the others?


Still waiting for answers to these questions......................


Ohreally already answered your questions. I guess you are so busy comparing those that disagree with you to nazis and calling them cheerleaders that you missed it.

I suggest that you re-read the questions asked, and then the “answers”.

It is a well established propaganda tactic to answer a question that was not asked, then pretend that the original question was answered.

This is a tactic that is typically applied when you don’t know the answer to a question; the intent is to confuse the issue and deflect attention away from the fact that you don’t know.

I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with me; I do have a problem with people who choose to argue a point without first having informed themselves of the issues.

Still waiting for the answers..............


More insulting retoric. You should really try to clean up your act.

He gave you a straight, honest answer. You just do not like it.


This may explain canuck's obstinance.
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy

"Cultural cognition" is the term used to describe the process by which individuals' group values shape their perceptions of societal risks. It refers to the unconscious tendency of people to fit evidence of risk to positions that predominate in groups to which they belong. http://phys.org/news...ed-science.html

#12 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 02 June 2012 - 10:49 PM

I guess he did miss it the first time. I've added color to the font so he won't miss it this time.

Natural variations caused those to start and end. But your entrenched resistance and insistence that this present upswing is a completely natural event flies in the face of all the data available that points human use of fossil fuels playing a role.

They're use interchangeably. Asking for definitions is not relevant. It's a smoke screen tactic.

I post these articles so more reasonable people can use you as a barometer against unreasonableness.


Sorry, I didn’t respond to your post because I thought you were kidding.

1. Climate events do not occur by magic. They occur as a result of the interaction of various atmospheric, physical and cosmological factors.

It is incumbent on “climate scientists” to identify those factors and to specify the mechanism whereby they interact to produce the observed result. Once they can explain historical events, they will be in a position to speculate on future events.

Therefore I repeat my question: what caused the climate events I have specified?

2. I am very interested in your statement that “ all the data available that points human use of fossil fuels playing a role”.

3. In that the perpetrators of this scam have taken court action to suppress this data, I am heartened to see that you have this data available. I, and thousands of other scientists world wide, would like to see it; also could you please forward a copy to the Attorney General of the State of Virginia? He is currently fighting a court case to have this data made public, where it can be examined by real scientists.

4. To real scientsts, the expressions : “climate disruption”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “anthropogenic global warming” all have a precise and defined meaning. To them, the expressions are not interchangeable, and their specific meaning is very relevant to the issues.

5. Could you please indulge me, and explain what these expressions mean?

6. Still waiting for the answers………….

Edited by canuck, 02 June 2012 - 10:50 PM.


#13 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 08:25 AM

Neither I or you is a climate scientist so we can't speak to the details. but I can refer you to sites that do such as this one

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.
http://earthobservat...rming/page3.php

Is Current Warming Natural?

In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.
A biographical sketch of Milutin Milankovitch describes how changes in Earth’s orbit affects its climate.
These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

http://earthobservat...rming/page4.php


Like the article indicates natural events of the past caused the climate to change.

As for your insistence claiming scientists use those terms more precisely makes a difference to the forseen outcome of climate change is still an attempt at obfuscation.
One more thing you shouldn't use a politician and a very conservative one at that, as someone who knows what he talking about.
Instead of just being a big fish in a very small pond why not put yourself in a bigger pond like this one http://www.climate-d...forum/index.php ?

Other sources:
www.realclimate.org
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

#14 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 04 June 2012 - 08:02 PM

Thinking of Nazis:

June 4, 2012
Climate-Catastrophe Skeptics - If You Can't Beat 'Em, Shrink 'Em!
By Charles Clough

The National Wildlife Federation's new publication "The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States" gives wildlife a new meaning. Citing evidence that many in the climate alarmist community are "frustrated and burned out," it quotes one member as trying to keep on persuading mankind that a climate apocalypse is at hand so "I will not be able to feel the angst or despair" of failure.

For nearly three decades, certain U.S., U.K., and U.N. activists, like NASA's James Hanson, have tried to sell governments on draconian centralized economic policies supposedly to save the planet. Anyone disagreeing -- regardless of credentials and reasoning -- becomes the target of rhetorical terrorism. But the skeptical resistance is so strong and growing so rapidly -- not just in the public, but also among scientists -- that the alarmists increasingly show signs of both despair and loss of self-control.

In his recent Forbes article, alarmist Steve Zwick, apparently inspired by Hanson's tirades, wants the scientifically unpersuaded to be hunted down and their homes burned. Daniel Souweine of the Soros-funded Citizen Engagement Lab demands that TV weathercasters who disagree that man is the prime cause of climate change to be persecuted until they repent.

A rational person would think a call for psychological intervention would be directed against such behavior. Not so. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) now calls upon government to bankroll massive intervention by the mental health community to deal with up to 200 million cases of stress from projected "climate related events and incidents."

Then, in language reminiscent of Mao Tse-tung's education camps for the non-compliant, the NWF eagerly anticipates how government-funded psychological experts will break down denial and bring "rational thinking into decision making." Such experts will merely extend the present authority for reporting child abuse to reporting climate skepticism! Oregon professor Kari Norgaard already argues that scientific disagreement on the cause of climate change is an aberrant sociological behavior that must be treated.

These strident calls for an end to free thought are based, according to NWF, on "knowing full well what the science is telling us." What science is telling us? Where? In adjusted surface temperature data sets? In the misfit between actual global temperatures and model projections? In the limited effect of doubling CO2 of about a degree Celsius? In the global warming of the medieval period and other ages past due to yet unknown natural causes -- causes that somehow have mysteriously ceased so that we "know full well" that the present gradual warming must be due to man?

The real source of "what the science is telling us" is a sociological phenomenon that President Eisenhower warned about in 1961 -- a phenomenon readily recognizable in the case of the military but apparently ignored in the case of science. Most students of government are aware of his warning against misplaced power of the military-industrial complex.

Few, however, have read two paragraphs further, where Ike also warned, "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. ... We must also be alert...that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Shrinks aren't needed to heal the imagined sickness of widespread scientifically based disagreement. If they want a project, why not study the dynamics of the climate elite that suppresses publication of contrary papers, withholds funds from politically incorrect research, and demands conformity of educational curricula with its political agenda of globalism?

Oh, and, while they're at it, why not check the increasing human wildlife behavior of certain alarmists?

Charles Clough, M.S., Meteorology is retired chief of the U.S. Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, where he focused on atmospheric measurement technology, and is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

#15 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The cold, scary world of Skepticism

Posted 04 June 2012 - 08:14 PM

Charles Clough, M.S., Meteorology is apparently an expert in pschology. LOL

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users