NASA weight in on the Global Warming denialist campaign

[Cypress]

Fact-checking the latest global warming denialist campaign.

When NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently announced that it was revising its temperature data, right-wing bloggers leaped at the news to propel its global warming denial campaign. James Hansen — head of the NASA center — sets the record straight.

He writes that the “corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable,” adding that the “deceit” propagated by the right “has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change.”


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

http://thinkprogress.org/

 

[uscitizen]

The desperate to defend their position ones are eager to be decieved.

 

[TheDanold]

Hansen is a political hack, good scientists just produce data and let the public decide, instead he tries to sell the public on it like any good politician saying it requires no hardship or reduction in quality of life.
This is of course any lefty politicians lie, there is no question it reduces quality of life as buying more expensive eco-fuels clearly reduces your purchasing power by a larger degree.
Previous heads of NASA used to comment more on what NASA's purpose is which is space related travel/technology, whereas he has concentrated mainly on global warming.

If you look at the real scepticism on global warming, very little of it comes from those on the government payroll like Hansen who depend on their being a global warming problem. More (scepticism) comes from university professors who are usually more independent and whose job security does not depend on sating leftwing politicians who desire the power to regulate based on their being a crisis and of course to secure their own funding and maintain their job and lifestyle.

 

[Onceler]

Dano fails to mention, of course, the millions that get spent by companies like ExxonMobil to create an atmosphere of "intense debate" on the subject.

It's funny how a guy who posted that global warming HELPS whales & polar bears talks about lies & disinformation the way he does...

 

[TheDanold]

The desperate to defend their position ones are eager to be decieved.

I would say those who are more desperate do more desperate tactics. Have you seen any death threats to those who claim humans cause global warming?


"Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm


And those are just the death threats, far more have received regular threats over loss of funding, decertification (Liberal governor of Oregon and Delaware I think if memory serves) and so on.

Why not have a debate and if truth is on your side you have nothing to worry about, instead they (enviroleftists) are stifling dissent because they are worried that people will learn much of what they said is simply not true or exxagerated and lose their agenda in congress.

 

[Bonestorm]

Dano - You're full of it.

Remember your gleeful posting of the comments of that guy at NASA that hinted that global warming might not be all that bad? But, this Hansen fellow who you know pretty much nothing about can be summarily dismissed because he is a "political hack."

Hacktackular!

 

[TheDanold]

Dano fails to mention, of course, the millions that get spent by companies like ExxonMobil to create an atmosphere of "intense debate" on the subject.

Right that reminds me, I'm due to pick up my weekly check from Exxon today, I shore hope I beat out stirfry and all the other thousands of regular joe online debaters drawing bigtime cash from oil companies trying to control the blogospheres!
Stupid idiot

It's funny how a guy who posted that global warming HELPS whales & polar bears talks about lies & disinformation the way he does...

Fuck you liar, you know I only said that about whales, I clearly said the affects of global warming on the polar bear population are that they are stagnant which means the effects are likely non-existent or they balance themselves out. (ie: colder temps mean more ice and easier time catching seals but larger amount of food needing to be eaten for larger blubber coating)

Keep clinging to that little piece of pedantic nothingness like the little bitch you are.

 

[Onceler]

"Fuck you liar, you know I only said that about whales"

No -you didn't. First, you implied it blatantly with the thread title (should I bump that humiliating experience back up for you again?), and then you said again in the thread that global warming was tied to the stability of the bear population.

And the whale claim is so far off - you only went with a layman's observation that "fewer whales get stuck in the ice," while ignoring the effects of warming on the food chain, which is already hurting whale populations, and did during El Nino as well....

Your entire thread was one of lies & disinformation, which ignored science & the studies of experts in the field...

 

[TheDanold]

Dano - You're full of it.

Remember your gleeful posting of the comments of that guy at NASA that hinted that global warming might not be all that bad? But, this Hansen fellow who you know pretty much nothing about can be summarily dismissed because he is a "political hack."

Hacktackular!

I do remember that, I'm glad you brought it up, so let's compare:
Hansen decides to present data and then start an agenda to promote his view of global warming being catastrophic and needing to be avoided at all costs and quickly.
While the other guy simply decides that it should not be up to him or others in power or influence to decide whether global warming is bad or good and for whom.

The latter is objective and letting the public decide (not a hack), the former (Hansen) is not objective at all and just advances his agenda (a hack).

Not only that but the latter guy got in trouble for simply remaining neutral by envirolefties who pushed him to recant, disgusting. What a terrible atmosphere for scepticism and you all wonder why you don't hear more scepticism?

 

[TheDanold]

"Fuck you liar, you know I only said that about whales"

No -you didn't. First, you implied it blatantly with the thread title (should I bump that humiliating experience back up for you again?), and then you said again in the thread that global warming was tied to the stability of the bear population.

And the whale claim is so far off - you only went with a layman's observation that "fewer whales get stuck in the ice," while ignoring the effects of warming on the food chain, which is already hurting whale populations, and did during El Nino as well....

Your entire thread was one of lies & disinformation, which ignored science & the studies of experts in the field...

Most baleen whale populations have gone up, do you dispute that?
The Minke whale is having problems because of hunting:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/23/whales/

 

[uscitizen]

I would say those who are more desperate do more desperate tactics. Have you seen any death threats to those who claim humans cause global warming?


"Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm


And those are just the death threats, far more have received regular threats over loss of funding, decertification (Liberal governor of Oregon and Delaware I think if memory serves) and so on.

Why not have a debate and if truth is on your side you have nothing to worry about, instead they (enviroleftists) are stifling dissent because they are worried that people will learn much of what they said is simply not true or exxagerated and lose their agenda in congress.

There are extremeists every where, the big money side fighting on the anti global warmming side uses other methods. like money and firing.

 

[Blackflag]

Right that reminds me, I'm due to pick up my weekly check from Exxon today, I shore hope I beat out stirfry and all the other thousands of regular joe online debaters drawing bigtime cash from oil companies trying to control the blogospheres!
Stupid idiot.

LOL DUMMY. You accuse the global warming crowd of believing the bought and paid for scientists everyday. He is just accusing you of the same.

Fuck you liar, you know I only said that about whales, I clearly said the affects of global warming on the polar bear population are that they are stagnant which means the effects are likely non-existent or they balance themselves out. (ie: colder temps mean more ice and easier time catching seals but larger amount of food needing to be eaten for larger blubber coating)

Keep clinging to that little piece of pedantic nothingness like the little bitch you are.

LOL EMO much?

 

[Onceler]

Most baleen whale populations have gone up, do you dispute that?
The Minke whale is having problems because of hunting:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/23/whales/

No, I don't dispute that. But this gets down to your "causation, correlation" problem. The species that have stabilized have done so because of severe restrictions on hunting for them.

And before you go off with your knee-jerk, unscientific "oh, well hunting is tied to everything about whale population," you might want to actually educate yourself for a change, and see what the people who actually study this for a living are saying:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007/2007-05-21-04.asp

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Warming_Causing_Gray_Whales_To_Lose_Weight_999.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0801_wirewhales2.html

 

[Bonestorm]

Dano - You're an idiot.

Hansen is a career climate scientist at NASA. He's been there 30 years and really has no vested interest in politics.

The other guy, the NASA administrator, is a Bush Administration appointee with absolutely so background in climate science.


Tell me Dano, which one looks more like a hack to you

 

[TheDanold]

LOL DUMMY. You accuse the global warming crowd of believing the bought and paid for scientists everyday. He is just accusing you of the same.
LOL EMO much?

Very few scientists take oil money, even the one case I think I remember it amounted to a few thousand, which is peanuts over their lifetime.
Yet obviously every government scientist is on the government's payroll and their funding or entire salary (not just a few thousand) depends on their being a problem to investigate. Many professors also get grants from the government for this (though not all at least).

It's just not the same comparison.

 

[Blackflag]

Very few scientists take oil money, even the one case I think I remember it amounted to a few thousand, which is peanuts over their lifetime.
Yet obviously every government scientist is on the government's payroll and their funding or entire salary (not just a few thousand) depends on their being a problem to investigate. Many professors also get grants from the government for this (though not all at least).

It's just not the same comparison.

LOL it is when you cite info from the oil company.

 

[TheDanold]

There are extremeists every where, the big money side fighting on the anti global warmming side uses other methods. like money and firing.

There are certainly extremists on both sides, I will give you that.
But how does Exxon fire or hire anyone on the government's payroll, or university professors for that matter?

And have you ever seen anyone on the right threaten the life (or even decertification) of anyone who espouses the notion of humans causing global warming?
Clearly the extremism is far more severe on the envirolefty side, judging by the methods they are willing to go to to silence dissent.

 

[Blackflag]

And have you ever seen anyone on the right threaten the life (or even decertification) of anyone who espouses the notion of humans causing global warming?

I have seen rightys blow up a building and murder people at abortion clinics and call John McCain with death threats so whats ur point exactly?

 

[TheDanold]

LOL it is when you cite info from the oil company.

I've never done that and there are virtually no scientists who do that either, what would be the point, it's so easy to get hit for that. Although certainly just because companies produce oil doesn't make their findings wrong, just suspect:
View this video that addresses that point.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

 

[Cypress]

Its time to post this:

1) All of the major scientific bodies and organizations on the entire Planet, who have expertise in climate science, agree that human activities are contributing to global warming/global climate change:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
United States National Academy of Science
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

plus, The National Science Academies of:
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
Australia
China
Belgium
Brazil
the Carribean
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Malaysia
New Zealand
Sweden


2) Peer Reviewed Scientific Research.

One of America’s most respected scientific journals (Science Magazine), conducted a huge survey of the peer reviewed scientific literature pertaining to global warming.

Their survey found that since 1993, there have been no (zero) peer-reviewed published research papers that has disagreed with, or debunked, the consensus position on anthropogenic global climate change.*

* http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686



3) Political Consensus-- All the major world political leaders on the planet - including George Bush - agree than human activities and human greenhouse emissions, are impacting climate change. And that human emissions need to be curtailed, or reduced.