Study finds Climate Change is a NATURAL occurrence - Liberals Shocked & Dismayed

Micawber said:
These people seems smart enough to gather peer reviewed literature taking a position on AGW and counting those that assert it is man caused.
I mean, you are only a fisherman and even you could possibly help do that.
Click to expand...

I think it is cute you think the scientists aren't biased

Here is how it works

Gobblement shells out big dollars
Gobblement seeks evidence of "climate change" as a pretext for bigger gobblement
Scientists want big dollars
Scientists give gobblement what it wants.

People like you are too stupid to know you have been duped
 
Cadillac Man said:
SdlqS50.gif
Click to expand...

Oh look, Yurt's stalker took a selfie.

:rofl2:
 
Bigdog said:
Their efforts to convince the public that they, and only they, control the climate, ... are failing.

And Liberal Socialists are in a tizzy over the poor box office profits from Al Gore's new video. So we can expect a bunch of "climate control" news stories to try to prop up Gore's profits.

Vostok.png
Click to expand...

Boy, you got me, dumb liberul here. So tell me oh smart one what does that Conservative wise graph tell all us dumb liberuls? Please tell me the context and the details of that graph. I'm pretty sure all the socialist commie liberul scientists mist it but you, oh YOU great dog of bigness have it all figured out. So please enlighten us. I would love to be educated on the breakdown of what that graph means so I can call my commie scientist & let them know what they obviously missed and you of course get.
Thank you for your service.
 
archives said:
I'll go with the proof provided by Science rather than the unfounded right wing rhetoric

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Next
Click to expand...

So why did so many ex-NASA scientists send an open letter to Charles Boden in 2012 complaining about the politicisation of climate science? They had the luxury of being able to be totally honest as they weren't scared of being victimised by a vengeful management.

Here is the letter.


March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
So why did so many NASA people send an open letter to Charles Boden in 2012 complaining about the politicisation of climate science? Here is the letter.

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/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
Click to expand...

Important to have context, right?

A prominent physicist has publicly announced that he is no longer a climate-change skeptic, but broader public sentiment may be becoming more, rather than less, entrenched.

Oh shit... oops.

Damn quote below...

It's the trend that I find in some ways the most disturbing, because in the end, the climate system doesn't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican," Leiserowitz told LiveScience. "It's not like the floods are only going to hit Democrats and not Republicans or that the droughts are going to impact liberal farmers and not conservative ones. In the end, we all will suffer together and in the end, we'll all have to solve this together.
Click to expand...

Your point?
 
crowonapost said:
Boy, you got me, dumb liberul here. So tell me oh smart one what does that Conservative wise graph tell all us dumb liberuls? Please tell me the context and the details of that graph. I'm pretty sure all the socialist commie liberul scientists mist it but you, oh YOU great dog of bigness have it all figured out. So please enlighten us. I would love to be educated on the breakdown of what that graph means so I can call my commie scientist & let them know what they obviously missed and you of course get.
Thank you for your service.
Click to expand...

it tells us you ignore the fact that global warming is a natural cycle that is NOT caused by human activity and the current cycle is in fact LESS extreme and accelerated than the last three cycles.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it tells us you ignore the fact that global warming is a natural cycle that is NOT caused by human activity and the current cycle is in fact LESS extreme and accelerated than the last three cycles.......
Click to expand...

It does? You mean asking the OP a question led to all that? I think you assume waay too much. Says more about you than anything.
Thanks for playing.
 
crowonapost said:
It does? You mean asking the OP a question led to all that? I think you assume waay too much. Says more about you than anything.
Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
You don't really believe the climate started changing around 1980, do you? The OP was obviously being sarcastic. Lighten up.
As far as the graph, there are so many out there pertaining to climate, showing only one is pretty meaningless unless it's to clarify a scientific article.
But you know all that, right? Right?
 
Corazón said:
So why did so many ex-NASA scientists send an open letter to Charles Boden in 2012 complaining about the politicisation of climate science? They had the luxury of being able to be totally honest as they weren't scared of being victimised by a vengeful management.

Here is the letter.
Click to expand...


3 part answer:

1. I agree it has been politicized. That is lamentable. 2. Our side has the insurance policy that it will follow the consensus science, whereas yours is wed to counter-narrative and politics.

3. To an extent politics is unavoidable because remedying the situation requires people to act in ways they will not act on their own. There was an extant situation and an ideal situation. In addition to attempting to achieve a best case result, it requires fending off you people who appear to desire to make the situation as bad as possible. So we do gooders have two enemies, the reality of the climate science and you morons fighting against us and proclaiming a false reality.

And, yes, I've pretty much described a situation which if you believe we believe this, that then you should understand why we more or less believe your ilk are pretty delusional or evil fuckers. Your pick.
 
Micawber said:
3 part answer:

1. I agree it has been politicized. That is lamentable. 2. Our side has the insurance policy that it will follow the consensus science, whereas yours is wed to counter-narrative and politics.

3. To an extent politics is unavoidable because remedying the situation requires people to act in ways they will not act on their own. There was an extant situation and an ideal situation. In addition to attempting to achieve a best case result, it requires fending off you people who appear to desire to make the situation as bad as possible. So we do gooders have two enemies, the reality of the climate science and you morons fighting against us and proclaiming a false reality.

And, yes, I've pretty much described a situation which if you believe we believe this, that then you should understand why we more or less believe your ilk are pretty delusional or evil fuckers. Your pick.
Click to expand...


Consensus isn't science and isn't an argument from science. It is purely a political argument.
 
Micawber said:
3 part answer:

1. I agree it has been politicized. That is lamentable. 2. Our side has the insurance policy that it will follow the consensus science, whereas yours is wed to counter-narrative and politics.

3. To an extent politics is unavoidable because remedying the situation requires people to act in ways they will not act on their own. There was an extant situation and an ideal situation. In addition to attempting to achieve a best case result, it requires fending off you people who appear to desire to make the situation as bad as possible. So we do gooders have two enemies, the reality of the climate science and you morons fighting against us and proclaiming a false reality.

And, yes, I've pretty much described a situation which if you believe we believe this, that then you should understand why we more or less believe your ilk are pretty delusional or evil fuckers. Your pick.
Click to expand...
That letter included real rocket scientists, seven astronauts and engineers who worked on many projects including Apollo and the Moon landings. One of them was Chris Kraft who is a legend for his work on Apollo. You, by contrast, are a snotty nosed arrogant little fucker and I've no time for you. Oh and who the fuck is we anyway, are you claiming to be some kind of CAGW evangelist?
 
Corazón said:
That letter included real rocket scientists, seven astronauts and engineers who worked on many projects including Apollo and the Moon landings. One of them was Chris Kraft who is a legend for his work on Apollo. You, by contrast, are a snotty nosed arrogant little fucker and I've no time for you. Oh and who the fuck is we anyway, are you claiming to be some kind of CAGW evangelist?
Click to expand...

What about "I agree that it has been politicized" do you not understand, fool. Wasn't that your sub-thesis? Yikes. You don't even read the TOTAL CONCESSION before you launch into an insult tirade. Take a chill pill, loser. And seriously, my father did all that shit with NASA and he is not a climate scientist. He wouldn't venture an opinion. Im sure he'd admit it's politicized. Even a monkey would admit the issue is political. I mean...

HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT instead of say, ocular surgery or something.

You are a stupid idiot.
 
jmotivator said:
Consensus isn't science and isn't an argument from science. It is purely a political argument.
Click to expand...

Wow, I was about to post almost the exact same thing as a quote from the landmark Gerlich and Tscheuschner article Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
"However, in general “scientific consensus” is not related whatsoever to scientific truth as
countless examples in history have shown. “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific term." https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top