So NASA is wrong?
Poll: How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?
- Thread starter jderimig
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Status
Original hockey stick graph, fake and manipulated. 97 % of scientists agree number, debunked. Al Gore, hypocrite and C02 polluter. Science is not done by consensus and true science is never "settled". Once it was "science" to believe the sun orbits the earth. It was "science" that predicted, that the planets followed circular orbits. As long as falsification is part of the scientific method, then it will never be settled. Ultimately, no one knows what the future holds, but I know who holds the future and It ain't Al Gore !
P.S. Fusion power has always been 20 years away, and Climate disaster is always 12 years away, and it will always be 20 and 12 years respectively. So chillax !
P.S. Fusion power has always been 20 years away, and Climate disaster is always 12 years away, and it will always be 20 and 12 years respectively. So chillax !
The source of the graph is NASA.
So I repeat: Is NASA wrong?
So I repeat: Is NASA wrong?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,002
- Reaction score
- 4,118
Stop hiding behind facts - would Al Gore, John Kerry, and Leonardo DiCaprio be vigorously flying around the world on private jets warning us about global warming if the temperatures were not actually changing? Would Europe and the US be shutting down the fossil fuel industry that provides cheap reliable energy, high paying jobs, and lots of tax revenues if it wasn't necessary to save the world from melting? We must not let facts get in the way of our fears.
So is NASA wrong?
So you are saying you didn't like my temperature and ice graphs because they didn't fit your expectations?
My bad, ; ) I heard somebody say, facts don't care about our feelings and I liked it. Sung to the tune, I kissed a girl, lol.
I didn't say anything about like/dislike or expectations. YOU said the time frame was too short for the XKCD graph. So I offered a graph of cyclic CO2 levels with an 800 millenium time frame.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 2,067
We must not let facts get in the way of our fears.
Or politics. Still the same ole lies... Oh its Al Gore!!! Oh it is John Kerry! LOL... BRILLIANT!!! Well played... for the past 25 years! Debunked at every FACTUALL LEVEL. Leave 'redstate.com' and try 'nature.com'!
Your children, grandchildren and beyond, will spit on your grave for the ignorance and callous disregard of facts and science deniers display and espouse now. Sad, but I take solace in the fact they are YOUR children and YOUR descendants that will pay for YOUR denial of 'facts'. Because you are entitled to "You own facts".
Or politics. Still the same ole lies... Oh its Al Gore!!! Oh it is John Kerry! LOL... BRILLIANT!!! Well played... for the past 25 years! Debunked at every FACTUALL LEVEL. Leave 'redstate.com' and try 'nature.com'!
Your children, grandchildren and beyond, will spit on your grave for the ignorance and callous disregard of facts and science deniers display and espouse now. Sad, but I take solace in the fact they are YOUR children and YOUR descendants that will pay for YOUR denial of 'facts'. Because you are entitled to "You own facts".
I'd like so see Al's total carbon footprint compared to the combined total of 100 of my neighbors here in small town Montana. It's certainly an ironic twist to the phrase "As long as someone else's ox is being gored."
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 2,067
Like Al Gore's Carbon Footprint would matter?
If his CFP was 100x mine, his message is worth 100000x.
If his CFP was 100x mine, his message is worth 100000x.
The topic is climate change, and the question is are NASA's conclusions wrong?
A simple question really.
The fact that no one wants to answer the question directly and instead deflects and obfuscates with other topics speaks volumes about the strength of their position.
Or lack thereof.
A simple question really.
The fact that no one wants to answer the question directly and instead deflects and obfuscates with other topics speaks volumes about the strength of their position.
Or lack thereof.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 2,067
Your descendants won't. But then why care?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,707
- Reaction score
- 6,374
that ship (heck a whole massive ongoing fleet) started sailing a long time ago, and neither the recipients nor the government cares about your words, unfortunately.
My descendants will be right there with yours, and they will laugh at people who believe what snake oil salesmen say. Al Gore is a weather pimp, who preys on the weak minded. Like certain others are poverty pimps. I don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths. And unless you have a hella big dimmer switch, your not lowering the Earth's temperature !
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,707
- Reaction score
- 6,374
Ouch!
Was NASA wrong about cold
O- rings. What about hot landing gear and wing structures. Why can't they be wrong about this temperature problem ?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 2,067
good luck with that. sad.
Don't believe in luck either, so I'm good. Happy !
I agree that any person or organization can be wrong on any number of topics.
But it's not just NASA.
Scientists and organizations w-a-a-y- smarter than me have reached the same conclusions.
And they encompass both political parties.
You trust your mechanic when he tells you your car needs a tune up.
You trust your doctor when he tells you that you need an operation.
Why? Because they are knowledgable in their respective fields.
Why is this any different?
Last edited:
I just found the original question interesting. Is NASA Wrong ? As if NASA could never be wrong. That's why I answered,with examples of the times we all KNOW they were wrong, and it was deadly. 17 men and women died. I know you believe many more will die and have died from " climate change" . In one sense I agree. People have died from droughts, floods, lightning, mudslides, and many other climate related events. The issue is, is climate changed by man, and can man do anything about it. To this I say, no and no. My personal belief based on the evidence is that c02 levels have gone up and down throughout history. There are times in the past where c02 was higher than it is now, and it was cooler then, than now. I personally am more concerned about nuclear weapons and nuclear waste. Forever chemicals, and air pollution caused by tailpipes and smoke stacks. And I don't mean c02. I'm talking about carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, and all that wonderful acid rain making stuff. There's also the pollution in the cities, with people camped out, doing their business right on the sidewalk and leaving their hypodermic needles laying around for kids to be stuck by. So many pollution problems we should be tackling. C02 shouldn't even be on the list. It's way down there if at all. Let's do the "easy" things first. Then we can worry about that giant dimmer switch for the sun. The real cause of warming, ; )
Thought this video was apropos.
Thought this video was apropos.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,482
The climate “folks” love to look back to guess what will happen in the future but fail to take into consideration what accomplishments may be made. Take for example cold fusion. When that happens, and it will in a very short period of time relative to the 800,000 years NASA apparently uses, then all the fossil fuel complainers will be rendered irrelevant. Bottom line, our children and grandchildren probably won’t be bothered by .2 deg of temperature rise…it will likely be a bug developed in a lab somewhere…
I find the thought process of jumping from "Is NASA wrong "(on climate change) to "NASA could never be wrong" fascinating. Because if you read my post that was never said or implied.
Like I said, it's a simple question. One that still has not been directly answered. All you need to do is type Y-E-S or N-O.
And good luck on justifying your answer.
Oh how quickly they forget!
Environmental changes have been wrought by man, and can be corrected by man. Remember when scientists warned us about the ozone hole over the south pole. Over a hundred nations signed an accord that banned the manufacture and use of fluorocarbons. Studies monitoring the size of the ozone depletion show the hole is gradually shrinking since the ban. Thank God for science alerting us to the problem and the world for banding together to solve it. I hate to think what would have happened if there were "ozone depletion deniers" back then holding sway.
Can you provide a reputable scientific link confirming that? The NASA graph I linked to shows that CO2 has never been higher than it is right now over the past 800,000 years. And by a considerable margin.
From what I have read, the current prevailing theory is that the cause of cooling and warming periods on a geologic time scale may be due to small perturbations in the inclination of the earth to the sun.
So not the sun per se but earth's inclination to it. Apparently a very small degree change can have a pronounced effect on climate.
Since all my replies are done with one finger, I just don't have it in me tonight to give a much needed lengthy reply
Point by point scientific rebuttal of Dr. Robson, whose arguments against climate change were linked to in a couple of You Tube videos earlier in this thread. BTW he is a doctor in history, not earth sciences.
Not saying he's wrong because his area of expertise is history, but if you had cancer would you seek advice from a podiatrist or an oncologist? Uh huh.
Not saying he's wrong because his area of expertise is history, but if you had cancer would you seek advice from a podiatrist or an oncologist? Uh huh.
"You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic".
Robert Heinlein
Robert Heinlein
No. You based your argument on data that was cherry picked to support your argument. You didn't like seeing the superset of the data that actually didn't agree with your beliefs. Then you said "oh look, a squirrel" to attempt to distract me from those facts with a different graph that did fit with your beliefs.
- Status
